# Ryzen 9 3950X reviews are live!



## thebluebumblebee (Nov 14, 2019)

.... and it's a stud.




































(with some product placement mockery thrown in)


----------



## TheLostSwede (Nov 14, 2019)

Some text based reviews, but I guess no-one cares to read any more so...
Sweclockers are testing with PBO and compares air vs liquid cooling as well.








						The AMD Ryzen 9 3950X Review: 16 Cores on 7nm with PCIe 4.0
					






					www.anandtech.com
				











						AMD Ryzen 9 3950X Review | bit-tech.net
					

16 cores, the fastest boost speed... high-end desktop performance on Socket AM4? Let's see if the Ryzen 9 3950X was worth waiting for.




					bit-tech.net
				











						AMD Ryzen 9 3950X Review: 16 Cores Muscles Into the Mainstream
					

Turn the dial up to 16




					www.tomshardware.com
				











						AMD Ryzen 3000 – Part VIII – AMD Ryzen 9 3950X vs Intel Core i9 10980XE
					

AMD Ryzen 9 3950X   Putem spune orice despre AMD, dar cu siguranta nu putem afirma ca nu stiu sa lanseze produse, cel mai bun exemplu fiind, de altfel, produsul care se lanseaza astazi. Asa cu…




					lab501.ro
				











						主流最強！AMD Ryzen 9 3950X 處理器測試報告 / 16 核心虐翻主流
					

AMD 第 3 代 Ryzen 處理器憑著 7nm 製程與 Zen2 架構優化，再精進 Chiplet 設計的 CCD 與 cIOD 晶片，讓主流 AM4 腳位的 Ryzen 處理器，可有著最高 16 核心的「Ryzen 9 3950X」處理器，得以在 X570 平台中推出，這也讓主流平台的核心數暴增，而在 11/25 號正式販售前，就先來揭曉 3950X 驚人的多核效能，甚至可與 2 年前的 18 核心處理器相互較勁。     TR 下放主流推至 16 核心 Ryzen 9 3950X  就不花太多時間講這代 Ryzen 的 7nm、Zen2 與 Chiplet 等技術，但從之前 2...




					news.xfastest.com
				











						AMD Ryzen 9 3950X – Zen 2 med 16 kärnor i konsumentklassen - Test
					

Med hela 16 kärnor och 32 trådar rundas Ryzen 3000-serien av med Ryzen 9 3950X, som befäster AMD:s position i prestandatoppen.




					www.sweclockers.com


----------



## GoldenX (Nov 14, 2019)

Guru3D is also out.
I prefer text, I can skip what I don't care about.


----------



## phanbuey (Nov 14, 2019)

tons of coars.

Definitely a specialist chip.


----------



## Zach_01 (Nov 14, 2019)

What really has impressed me is the wattage of this monster of CPU. Has shown what the 7nm is really capable of and that we are just at the beginning. 25~30% more all core performance at the same power draw compared to 3900X.
Also points out that the rest of us have the bottom of the barel silicon (well we knew that already)... and why 3950X is so late after 3000series launch
Its Theadripper/EPYC time now...


----------



## Deleted member 158293 (Nov 14, 2019)

The low cost, low power Home Server CPU King has entered the arena.

Very impressive indeed what AMD achieved on their AM4 platform.


----------



## kapone32 (Nov 14, 2019)

Well it looks like the more cores the higher the clock speed (well boost anyway) on Ryzen. If that does translate I expect the TR4 chips to be able to boost to 5.0 or so hopefully. But seriously this is a nice killer chip.


----------



## Zach_01 (Nov 14, 2019)

kapone32 said:


> *Well it looks like the more cores the higher the clock speed (well boost anyway) on Ryzen*. If that does translate I expect the TR4 chips to be able to boost to 5.0 or so hopefully. But seriously this is a nice killer chip.


I dont think this is a correlation. Chiplet design is all same from top to bottom. Its just better binning, and product segmentation. The 5GHz single boost is unlikely for TR40 IMHO.


----------



## kapone32 (Nov 14, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> I dont think this is a correlation. Chiplet design is all same from top to bottom. Its just better binning, and product segmentation. The 5GHz single boost is unlikely for TR4 IMHO.



If AMD does keep the promise of the top 5% binned chips going into TR4 they might. However I was using my heart (as it is already mentioned that the 3950X also qualifies for the previous statement) instead of head to make that statement so you are essentially right.


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 14, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> Some text based reviews, but I guess no-one cares to read any more so...
> Sweclockers are testing with PBO and compares air vs liquid cooling as well.


looking at a few reviews, boost clocks are all over the place. GN doesnt come close and Tom's is spot on...

No tpu review.....interesting.....

Edit: anand was 4.45ghz... yikes.


----------



## Zach_01 (Nov 14, 2019)

kapone32 said:


> If AMD does keep the promise of the top 5% binned chips going into TR4 they might.


I believe they are going to keep it and even better. But they are going to use it for keeping TDP under control and not stress the silicon for the speed hunt. They dont need that for a platform ment primarily for workstation puproses


----------



## thesmokingman (Nov 14, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> and why 3950X is so late after 3000series launch
> Its Theadripper/EPYC time now...



"We are focusing on meeting the strong demand for our 3rd generation AMD Ryzen processors in the market and now plan to launch both the AMD Ryzen 9 3950X and initial members of the 3rd Gen AMD Ryzen Threadripper processor family in volume this November. We are confident that when enthusiasts get their hands on the world’s first 16-core mainstream desktop processor and our next-generation of high-end desktop processors, the wait will be well worth it."

Also keep in mind during that time demand for the 3900x was thru the roof. What's hilarious now are all the conspiracy theories about how the 3950x suffered from poor clocks, smh.


----------



## kapone32 (Nov 14, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> I believe they are going to keep it and even better. But they are going to use it for keeping TDP under control and not stress the silicon for the speed hunt. They dont need that for a platform ment primarily for workstation puproses



Indeed the next iteration is strictly for workstations. The only game that I can think of that will benefit from all of those cores may be AOTS. I guess that it because I am on X399 that I would love AMD to release a 7NM chip for X399 but we would probably have to have a 2 million signature petition (I doubt that many people even own X399 systems) to make that happen.


----------



## Zach_01 (Nov 14, 2019)

kapone32 said:


> I guess that it because I am on X399 that I would love AMD to release a 7NM chip for X399 but we would probably have to have a 2 million signature petition (I doubt that many people even own X399 systems) to make that happen.


While the package output and socket it self of the 3000series Threadripper is identical (physical connection) to previous there is a quiet large re-arrangement of the pins because of the PCI-E lanes increase. This cant be compatible in any way.


----------



## thesmokingman (Nov 14, 2019)

Forbes is all over the 3950x.









						AMD Ryzen 9 3950X Review: A Shockingly Fast, Brilliant Processor
					

AMD's 16-core flagship finally arrives and it's absolutely amazing




					www.forbes.com


----------



## kapone32 (Nov 14, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> While the package output and socket it self of the 3000series Threadripper is identical (physical connection) to previous there is a quiet large re-arrangement of the pins because of the PCI-E lanes increase. This cant be compatible in any way.



I know what you are saying. I do think it is entirely possible for AMD to use the current pin layout to get a 7nm processor to run. I could honestly care less about PCI_E 4.0.


----------



## phanbuey (Nov 14, 2019)

AMD stock going bananas


----------



## thesmokingman (Nov 14, 2019)

phanbuey said:


> AMD stock going bananas



It's the day traders sweetheart!


----------



## phanbuey (Nov 14, 2019)

thesmokingman said:


> It's the day traders sweetheart!



The all want moar coars


----------



## thebluebumblebee (Nov 14, 2019)

Conclusion: We win!  

Thanks for adding those links @TheLostSwede


----------



## Durvelle27 (Nov 14, 2019)

It’s a beast


----------



## Solaris17 (Nov 14, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> Some text based reviews, but I guess no-one cares to read any more so...
> Sweclockers are testing with PBO and compares air vs liquid cooling as well.
> 
> 
> ...



I do. I hate youtube personalities. Thank you for this.


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 14, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> No tpu review.....interesting.....


yeah .. not enough samples apparently


----------



## IceShroom (Nov 14, 2019)

kapone32 said:


> I know what you are saying. I do think it is entirely possible for AMD to use the current pin layout to get a 7nm processor to run. I could honestly care less about PCI_E 4.0.


1st and 2nd gen Threadripper has 60 PCI-e lane useable for user, splitting into 48 for general purpose and 12 for M.2. New 3rd gen has 56 PCI-e lane useabe for users, splitting into 48 for general purpose and 8 for M.2.
So if some one puts 3rd gen on X399 atleast 1 M.2 will be unusable or a PCI-e slot depending how it is routed in board layout.
And this will creat confusion among users.


----------



## thesmokingman (Nov 14, 2019)

The biggest whopper for is that the 3950x does all that and barely consumes more power than the 3900x. And it actually runs slightly cooler. What freaking black magic is this!? Apparently it is easier to cool then you would think. And its power management is incredibly smart which is why it doesn't draw hardly more power than the 3900x.


----------



## xrror (Nov 14, 2019)

thesmokingman said:


> What freaking black magic is this!?


binning ;p


----------



## thesmokingman (Nov 14, 2019)

xrror said:


> binning ;p



Binning does allow it to hit its boost clock but look at how its power management is applied. Linus measured the chip running very very low vcore and only in lightly loaded threads does voltage boost upto to 1.4x v so it is able to stay inside its tdp rating. And obviously the elephant in the room is that its base boost is only 3.3ghz, which is a bit lower than the 3900x. Look around at the reviews. It's insane!

Something else I find vague is the idea that this is all down to binning as some reviewers claim. The 3950x is operating around 1v vcore which is something like 30% lower than the 3900x but, BUT the 3950x base clock is also 500mhz lower so it doesn't need more voltage to maintain that base clock.

**Also to put this into context, Hardware Unboxed tested the 3950x with the same all core overclock as the 3900x and when run this way the 3950x drew 30% more power. This puts it inline with it's extra 4 cores. Thus imo its not down to binning, its how they balanced their voltage vs core usage. Btw, the 3950x overclocks exactly like the 3900x in allcore overclocks, it's not anymore special... ie. 4.3ghz all core around 1.32v.


----------



## Camm (Nov 14, 2019)

I thought memory bandwidth was going to become an issue, and looks like I'm right - which makes me more annoyed that there isn't a 16 core threadripper part.


----------



## HD64G (Nov 14, 2019)

Incredible efficiency with monstrous multithreading performance on the AM4 platform. AMD cemented its leadership on desktop market today. And Threadripper gen 3 will do the same for HEDT also.


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 14, 2019)

W1zzard said:


> yeah .. not enough samples apparently


If they cant sample you... these are going to be vaporware after day 1....


----------



## dirtyferret (Nov 14, 2019)

for anyone looking at the gaming perspective of the CPU
_
"...if you're willing to spend that much money, right now it looks like performance in games is generally slightly worse than the 3900X....Where AMD's Ryzen 9 3950X shines is in the prosumer space. If you're doing serious work but don't quite have a blank check to go out and buy a $5,000-$10,000 workstation, you can get roughly the same level of performance with the 3950X and save a few thousand. It's also generally a more efficient CPU than any of the workstation or HEDT parts, because the AM4 platform keeps things sensible."









						AMD Ryzen 9 3950X review
					

A multithreaded 16-core/32-thread beast that's great for content creators and can also play games.




					www.pcgamer.com
				



_


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 14, 2019)

thesmokingman said:


> The biggest whopper for is that the 3950x does all that and barely consumes more power than the 3900x. And it actually runs slightly cooler. What freaking black magic is this!?


I wouldn't be surprised if they picked the reviewer CPUs out of a huge sample size, which could explain why so few samples


----------



## thesmokingman (Nov 14, 2019)

W1zzard said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if they picked the reviewer CPUs out of a huge sample size, which could explain why so few samples



That's a surprisingly negative take on it. AMD is under 10x time more scrutiny and you think they'd pull shenanigans like that?


----------



## GoldenX (Nov 14, 2019)

thesmokingman said:


> That's a surprisingly negative take on it. AMD is under 10x time more scrutiny and you think they'd pull shenanigans like that?


You never know.


----------



## dirtyferret (Nov 14, 2019)

thesmokingman said:


> That's a surprisingly negative take on it. AMD is under 10x time more scrutiny and you think they'd pull shenanigans like that?



What scrutiny is AMD under?  It's not like this CPU is coming out after the cluster!@#$ bulldozer & piledriver CPUs


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 14, 2019)

thesmokingman said:


> Binning does allow it to hit its boost clock but look at how its power management is applied. Linus measured the chip running very very low vcore and only in lightly loaded threads does voltage boost upto to 1.4x v so it is able to stay inside its tdp rating. And obviously the elephant in the room is that its base boost is only 3.3ghz, which is a bit lower than the 3900x. Look around at the reviews. It's insane!
> 
> Something else I find vague is the idea that this is all down to binning as some reviewers claim. The 3950x is operating around 1v vcore which is something like 30% lower than the 3900x but, BUT the 3950x base clock is also 500mhz lower so it doesn't need more voltage to maintain that base clock.
> 
> **Also to put this into context, Hardware Unboxed tested the 3950x with the same all core overclock as the 3900x and when run this way the 3950x drew 30% more power. This puts it inline with it's extra 4 cores. Thus imo its not down to binning, its how they balanced their voltage vs core usage. Btw, the 3950x overclocks exactly like the 3900x in allcore overclocks, it's not anymore special... ie. 4.3ghz all core around 1.32v.


look at some other reviews too. Looks like linus and Tom's got good ones. A few, including GN and Anandtech were not able to reach advertised boost by 150 and 200 mhz iirc.



Anand tech shows in detail power use. Like the 3900x, the 3950x shows peak power use at around 10c/20t. There the 3900x reached ~125W. The 3950x hit almost 145W at the same point. Yet with all cores and threads, it's the same... weird.

It's an odd curve....



W1zzard said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if they picked the reviewer CPUs out of a huge sample size, which could explain why so few samples


But the results are all over the place, at least when it comes to boost, etc... I dont know. With what they went through, I'd expect boost to be the thing they got right, you know?



thesmokingman said:


> Boost fiasco anyone?


its still here... look at other reviews.


----------



## thesmokingman (Nov 14, 2019)

dirtyferret said:


> What scrutiny is AMD under?  It's not like this CPU is coming out after the cluster!@#$ FX bulldozer & piledriver CPUs



Boost fiasco anyone?



EarthDog said:


> its still here... look at other reviews.



Yea I noticed that too. If they were handing out *ringer chips, they're not doing a very good job lol.


----------



## RealNeil (Nov 14, 2019)

thesmokingman said:


> Apparently it is easier to cool then you would think.


7nm advantage I think.
I like this CPU, but it is more than I need for home use these days.


----------



## notb (Nov 14, 2019)

thesmokingman said:


> That's a surprisingly negative take on it. AMD is under 10x time more scrutiny and you think they'd pull shenanigans like that?


Easily.
Why not?
Any better reason for so few sample CPUs? Even the guy doing the RAM calculator didn't get one. Just high-profile, mainstream sites.


xrror said:


> binning ;p


Nope. Optimization.
The same job can be done on 16 lightly loaded cores and on 8 cores pushed to the limit - but the "pushed to the limit" variant will pull more power and create more heat concentration issues.
The chip is limited, as seen in the AnandTech graph below.
So despite having twice as many cores and higher boost clocks, 3950X is not twice as fast as 3700X (between 60 and 90% in benchmark results I've seen).

By all means: it's not slow. In fact, assuming AMD was going for ~145W power draw, there's still some potential to make it faster. Finewine will happen.


----------



## Tomgang (Nov 14, 2019)

Meh i will keep my old Pentium 4, so much faster

3950X is truly a beast and that power efficiency is something special. Use less power than 3900X and yet it still has performance that is much better than 3900X and it runs cooler and at lower voltage to. Guess this is where AMD 7 NM + binning really showing it´s true potential. No bad, not bad at all. Gaming performance is also with in what i exspected as i al ready knew it would not beat I9 9900K/KS in gamings, but it is gennerelly close enough to 9900K + providing twice as many cores for workstation load that i think this is the best over all cpu. The best all in one cpu for little of every thing. Hence why i also will replace my I7 980X with Ryzen 9 3950X.

And for that reason also i will ask this of every one so that i can get a cpu before stock runs out:


----------



## notb (Nov 14, 2019)

Tomgang said:


> 3950X is truly a beast and that power efficiency is something special. Use less power than 3900X and yet it still has performance that is much better than 3900X and it runs cooler and at lower voltage to.


Power consumption characteristics are almost identical to 3900X. It's the same die.
AnandTech once again:
3900X:








						The AMD 3rd Gen Ryzen Deep Dive Review: 3700X and 3900X Raising The Bar
					






					www.anandtech.com
				



3950X:








						The AMD Ryzen 9 3950X Review: 16 Cores on 7nm with PCIe 4.0
					






					www.anandtech.com
				



(I got the earlier graph from here).

Both chips max out around 145W at 10C/20T.
3950X has 4 more cores and that's where the higher efficiency comes from.

As mentioned above: since the power draw drops above 10C, this CPU isn't properly optimized and should get faster after updates. It hits 145W at 10 cores and it should hit 145W (not 125W) on 16C. Unless there are some heat issues we don't know about...


----------



## Tomgang (Nov 14, 2019)

Has any one seen a review where they test ryzen 9 3950X with an air cooler? maybe a high end cooler like Noctua NH-D15.


----------



## Calmmo (Nov 14, 2019)

Im gonna go ahead and guess that any decent twin tower cooler will do just fine.


----------



## mstenholm (Nov 14, 2019)

Tomgang said:


> Has any one seen a review where they test ryzen 9 3950X with an air cooler? maybe a high end cooler like Noctua NH-D15.











						AMD Ryzen 9 3950X – Zen 2 med 16 kärnor i konsumentklassen - Test
					

Med hela 16 kärnor och 32 trådar rundas Ryzen 3000-serien av med Ryzen 9 3950X, som befäster AMD:s position i prestandatoppen.




					www.sweclockers.com


----------



## Tomgang (Nov 14, 2019)

Calmmo said:


> Im gonna go ahead and guess that any decent twin tower cooler will do just fine.





mstenholm said:


> AMD Ryzen 9 3950X – Zen 2 med 16 kärnor i konsumentklassen - Test
> 
> 
> Med hela 16 kärnor och 32 trådar rundas Ryzen 3000-serien av med Ryzen 9 3950X, som befäster AMD:s position i prestandatoppen.
> ...



Yeah i just found this one and it seems at stock at least, a good single tower can do the thing just fine. Look from time 7:16 in the video. So my original plan with Noctua NH-D15 chromax black will do just fine and maybe have a little left for some overclock as well. Great, as i i am not a fan of AIO and i am not a fan of water cooling in gennerel as it is more exspensive, more maintenance required and AIO tends to only hold 3-5 years and then needs to be replaced and i have my system for 6-8 years at a time (heck i have had my X58 for over 10 years now) so i will have had to replace an AIO at least one time in this pc life span while an air cooler will hold out the complete life time of the pc and only have to replace cooling paste and maybe fan/fans as they worn out. Excellente 3950X is my next new CPU for sure


----------



## notb (Nov 14, 2019)

Calmmo said:


> Im gonna go ahead and guess that any decent twin tower cooler will do just fine.


AMD recommends watercooling (280mm).
Sites that tested this CPU with popular AiOs got ~75*C under load, with 20-25*C ambient.
A "decent twin tower cooler" will certainly not be enough - unless you mean some of the best ones available.

Same sites got around ~85*C for 9900K and that CPU is considered hot. Tjmax: 95*C vs 100*C. So Ryzen has a higher safety margin, but it's pretty close.

Example:








						AMD Ryzen 9 3950X CPU Review - KitGuru
					

The wait is over for AMD's eagerly anticipated 16-core Ryzen 9 3950X processor. Slotting into the AM




					www.kitguru.net
				



50*C over ambient (74*C, Blender Classroom). And that's with H110X (240mm) at 2435 RPM (*very loud*).


----------



## Camm (Nov 14, 2019)

notb said:


> AMD recommends watercooling (280mm).
> Sites that tested this CPU with popular AiOs got ~75*C under load, with 20-25*C ambient.
> A "decent twin tower cooler" will certainly not be enough - unless you mean some of the best ones available.



Air cooling I think will be dependent on case airflow. I plan on using a U12S in Push/Pull in a FT05 for whenever I pick up a 3950X and doubt I'll have concerns considering I used a similar setup for a 1950X without issue.


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 14, 2019)

Camm said:


> Air cooling I think will be dependent on case airflow. I plan on using a U12S in Push/Pull in a FT05 for whenever I pick up a 3950X and doubt I'll have concerns considering I used a similar setup for a 1950X without issue.


it will of course run, but all core boost and likely single thread can be a bit lower and more variable. High-end air at minimum for optimal performance.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Nov 14, 2019)

A new shiney hot running FlagShip cpu purchased at some 750$ and one purchase 45$ air cooler....

You got money for 750$ chip, but can't afford a custom water loop to run it as cool as possible? 

Oh.... I'm not really in an O.C. Forum. I really gotta try to remember that.... sry, disregard the above....


----------



## thesmokingman (Nov 14, 2019)

Level1 dude runs 3950x stock vs heavily overclocked Intel's in a variety of benches. And Level1 was able to hit advertised boost clocks.


----------



## biffzinker (Nov 14, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> Some text based reviews, but I guess no-one cares to read any more so...
> Sweclockers are testing with PBO and compares air vs liquid cooling as well.
> 
> 
> ...


Techspot has their review up.








						AMD Ryzen 9 3950X Review: The New Performance King
					

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...




					www.techspot.com


----------



## lexluthermiester (Nov 14, 2019)

W1zzard said:


> yeah .. not enough samples apparently


That's irritating! TPU should buy a few, do reviews and then point out that AMD failed to supply the samples.


----------



## dirtyferret (Nov 14, 2019)

I strongly recommend* an Artic Alpine cooler for this CPU





*my recommendation is purely for self-amusement and not performance related


----------



## biffzinker (Nov 14, 2019)

dirtyferret said:


> I strongly recommend* an Artic Alpine cooler for this CPU
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It could work Alpine cooler 95 watts vs 3950X TDP 105 watts.


----------



## Tomgang (Nov 14, 2019)

dirtyferret said:


> I strongly recommend* an Artic Alpine cooler for this CPU
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No no that cooler is overkill. Well at least remove the fan for passiv cooling else it will run way to cold...

At least it´s not intel cause if so, you would have needed "The Chiller"


----------



## dirtyferret (Nov 14, 2019)

biffzinker said:


> It could work Alpine cooler 95 watts vs 3950X TDP 105 watts.



That's true.  Luckily for us the after market cooler industry never over exaggerates on the TDP performance of their coolers and Intel/AMD never under estimate the TDP needs of their CPUs.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Nov 14, 2019)

Looks like 6ghz on LN2. 





						AMD Ryzen 9 3950X @ HWBOT
					

3,228 submissions, 0/100 hw index




					hwbot.org


----------



## Camm (Nov 14, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> it will of course run, but all core boost and likely single thread can be a bit lower and more variable. High-end air at minimum for optimal performance.



Said 1950X was kept under 60c in that setup, so really not concerned.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Nov 14, 2019)

Do want , won't get one though but would love the crunching numbers.


----------



## phill (Nov 15, 2019)

Do wish I could buy   That's if there's any stock of course...  

Amazing CPU


----------



## Melvis (Nov 15, 2019)




----------



## EarthDog (Nov 15, 2019)

@thebluebumblebee - any chance you want to go through the thread and put all the links amd vids in the first post?


----------



## TheLostSwede (Nov 15, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> looking at a few reviews, boost clocks are all over the place. GN doesnt come close and Tom's is spot on...
> 
> No tpu review.....interesting.....
> 
> Edit: anand was 4.45ghz... yikes.


The problem is, it seems to vary a lot with different boards/UEFI/AGESA combinations.



thesmokingman said:


> That's a surprisingly negative take on it. AMD is under 10x time more scrutiny and you think they'd pull shenanigans like that?


Standard operating procedure when sending out samples for review.


----------



## johnny-r (Nov 15, 2019)

I knew AMD will leave the best for last in 2019 ! way to go AMD, cherry on the cake, advance my drinking !


----------



## Zach_01 (Nov 15, 2019)

kapone32 said:


> I know what you are saying. I do think it is entirely possible for AMD to use the current pin layout to get a 7nm processor to run. I could honestly care less about PCI_E 4.0.


But how they suppose to do that?
ZEN2 threadripper uses more pins for PCI-E lanes and ZEN1/+ those pins use them for something else. They had to move things around to do this. It is impossible to change the arrangement with a BIOS/UEFI version or software in general.


----------



## notb (Nov 15, 2019)

Camm said:


> Said 1950X was kept under 60c in that setup, so really not concerned.


In KitGuru's test 3950X is up to 18*C hotter than 2950X under load with the same cooling.













						AMD Ryzen 9 3950X CPU Review - KitGuru
					

The wait is over for AMD's eagerly anticipated 16-core Ryzen 9 3950X processor. Slotting into the AM




					www.kitguru.net


----------



## phill (Nov 15, 2019)

notb said:


> In KitGuru's test 3950X is up to 18*C hotter than 2950X under load with the same cooling.
> 
> View attachment 136551
> 
> ...



Unsurprising to be honest, comparing the size of the CPUs will have some effect surely on how much of a difference they will cool


----------



## csendesmark (Nov 15, 2019)

Hey Guys,
Is there any review where they specifically testing the new 3950X with 4 RAMs in the mobo?


----------



## TheLostSwede (Nov 15, 2019)

csendesmark said:


> Hey Guys,
> Is there any review where they specifically testing the new 3950X with 4 RAMs in the mobo?


Not that I've seen.
Admittedly I only have a single CCD CPU, but it's running fine at 3800MHz 1:1:1 with half decent timings.


----------



## kapone32 (Nov 15, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> But how they suppose to do that?
> ZEN2 threadripper uses more pins for PCI-E lanes and ZEN1/+ those pins use them for something else. They had to move things around to do this. It is impossible to change the arrangement with a BIOS/UEFI version or software in general.





Zach_01 said:


> But how they suppose to do that?
> ZEN2 threadripper uses more pins for PCI-E lanes and ZEN1/+ those pins use them for something else. They had to move things around to do this. It is impossible to change the arrangement with a BIOS/UEFI version or software in general.



It would not be a software or BIOS update (Or maybe it could X399 boards are pretty solid in construction as that almost happened with X470) that would allow them to run on X399. It does not make common sense from a money stand point but X399 and TR40 have the exact same pin count. I agree the biggest difference is PCIE_4.0 lanes vs PCIE_3.0 lanes. I am talking about a 7nm chip that is built on the TR2 pinout. If AMD released a TR4 chip with 16 cores at 7nm with support for X399 and sold it for around the price of the 3950X they would sell every single unit they have. When you compare X399 to X570 there is no reason for a power user to move down



IceShroom said:


> 1st and 2nd gen Threadripper has 60 PCI-e lane useable for user, splitting into 48 for general purpose and 12 for M.2. New 3rd gen has 56 PCI-e lane useabe for users, splitting into 48 for general purpose and 8 for M.2.
> So if some one puts 3rd gen on X399 atleast 1 M.2 will be unusable or a PCI-e slot depending how it is routed in board layout.
> And this will creat confusion among users.



The PCI lanes on 3rd gen are 4.0 which provide double the throughput of 3.0 in essence the 56 lanes on 3rd gen could theoretically be 112 3.0 lanes. We could theoretically have X399 boards with 4 full 16 slots and the 3 M2 slots.


----------



## notb (Nov 15, 2019)

phill said:


> Unsurprising to be honest, comparing the size of the CPUs will have some effect surely on how much of a difference they will cool


Exactly.
People got confused by the TDP.
We'll be seeing a lot of "my 3950X is very hot" topics...

It was obvious from the start that cooler makers will have to rethink their TDP specification for Intel 10nm (maybe give 2 separate figures during transition period?).
They may do this earlier since AMD 7nm is quite popular.

Noctua already tested 3950X:





						Noctua
					

Designed in Austria, Noctua's premium cooling components are renowned for their superb quietness, exceptional performance and thoroughgoing quality.




					noctua.at
				



It's far from bad. They say U14S is enough. It's likely a ~90*C "enough", but still.


----------



## phill (Nov 15, 2019)

Why buy a $750 CPU and run a $50 cooler?  It's not really helping matters is it??


----------



## sepheronx (Nov 15, 2019)

W1zzard said:


> yeah .. not enough samples apparently



which is a shame they rather give it to youtube personalities rather than a professional site.


----------



## Zach_01 (Nov 15, 2019)

kapone32 said:


> It would not be a software or BIOS update (Or maybe it could X399 boards are pretty solid in construction as that almost happened with X470) that would allow them to run on X399. It does not make common sense from a money stand point but X399 and TR40 have the exact same pin count. I agree the biggest difference is PCIE_4.0 lanes vs PCIE_3.0 lanes. I am talking about a 7nm chip that is built on the TR2 pinout. If AMD released a TR4 chip with 16 cores at 7nm with support for X399 and sold it for around the price of the 3950X they would sell every single unit they have. When you compare X399 to X570 there is no reason for a power user to move down


Ok I see what you are saying. A Zen2 based TR4 (and not TR40) CPU.


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Nov 15, 2019)

expect a code update soon. with all the varied results I expect AMD to come out with 2 updates to AGESA in the next 6 months.


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 15, 2019)

DeathtoGnomes said:


> expect a code update soon. with all the varied results I expect AMD to come out with 2 updates to AGESA in the next 6 months.


Agreed.

This is what I don't get.. as much hullabaloo happend with the boost clock issue already (enough to that they responded to it and put out a new AGESA or two to frix it), I cannot believe these come out of the box with the same issues. 

Great CPU, I mean really, but I just don't understand how this is still happening...

Their GPU speed rating is also ridiculous...



TheLostSwede said:


> The problem is, it seems to vary a lot with different boards/UEFI/AGESA combinations.


Same stuff, different pile.


----------



## notb (Nov 15, 2019)

phill said:


> Why buy a $750 CPU and run a $50 cooler?  It's not really helping matters is it??


Why buy a more expensive cooler if a $50 one does the job?



EarthDog said:


> Great CPU, I mean really, but I just don't understand how this is still happening...


Cost cutting and rushed launches. AMD want to make cheaper products and wants to be seen as the more innovative maker.
How else would they achieve this?

Honestly, Ryzen 3000 (sans 3950X) seems like the first properly designed and tested generation. Same for EPYC Rome.
Previous Zen-based stuff was pretty much a public beta test. Or crowdfunding campaign.
3950X seems a bit forced, but it works (at least the few samples that were tested).
We'll see how it goes in retail. Maybe it'll be so limited that no one will care in the end.


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Nov 15, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> Great CPU, I mean really, but I just don't understand how this is still happening...


it almost obvious ( /snicker ), one argument might be that AMD is more concerned with releasing a working product with the _fewest issues_. Its like the direction game development took in the last decade or so, _"We can always patch to fix the bugs"_


----------



## thesmokingman (Nov 15, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> Agreed.
> 
> This is what I don't get.. as much hullabaloo happend with the boost clock issue already (enough to that they responded to it and put out a new AGESA or two to frix it), I cannot believe these come out of the box with the same issues.
> 
> ...



There's 4 boards and a specific bios update for the reviewers. It's then down to the reviewers to get it right. Some can and some cannot. Watch the Level1 video I linked. He explains or that is makes full disclosure on the board/bios. Thus it looks to me like they have tried to make it damn simple and yet...  That review btw is the best one so far imo cuz it pits the 3950x stock against real world Intels in the best light. And you'll see the chips fall where you expect them to.


----------



## phill (Nov 16, 2019)

notb said:


> Why buy a more expensive cooler if a $50 one does the job?
> 
> 
> Cost cutting and rushed launches. AMD want to make cheaper products and wants to be seen as the more innovative maker.
> ...



As a $100 cooler will keep it warm but under the limit, what would be the point in just having it near throttling when it's cold and then downclocking when it's a hot day??   Having 16C/32T in a CPU that small, really needs some good custom water cooling


----------



## thebluebumblebee (Nov 16, 2019)

HardwareCanucks had no problem keeping their 3950X cool with a U12S.


----------



## phill (Nov 16, 2019)

thebluebumblebee said:


> HardwareCanucks had no problem keeping their 3950X cool with a U12S.



I'm just thinking outside the box here @thebluebumblebee ....  When summer months arrive, the ambient temps change a fair amount don't they...  If you add on 15 to 20C for the warm weather (I say that much because over here in the SW of the UK, its about 5C) and your seeing temps underload of 80C say, that'll get it near to or actually throttling..  I wouldn't want to spend all that cash out on a new CPU only to find I need to run it slower during the summer than the winter...  That's all I'm referring to


----------



## Zach_01 (Nov 16, 2019)

thebluebumblebee said:


> HardwareCanucks had no problem keeping their 3950X cool with a U12S.


Didn’t see it, but it was in case? Because most of them test the cpus in test beds with 22C ambient, which is out or far from reality. I have no case with AIO, but I’m not considered mainstream


----------



## thebluebumblebee (Nov 16, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> Didn’t see it, but it was in case? Because most of them test the cpus in test beds with 22C ambient, which is out or far from reality. I have no case with AIO, but I’m not considered mainstream


Ah, the open bench issue.  I don't know if that's what they did, but that definitely helps.  This is not a CPU to cool with a 212 plus.


----------



## notb (Nov 16, 2019)

phill said:


> As a $100 cooler will keep it warm but under the limit, what would be the point in just having it near throttling when it's cold and then downclocking when it's a hot day??   Having 16C/32T in a CPU that small, really needs some good custom water cooling


I said: "when a $50 one does the job". And if a cooler limits boost, it's not doing the job.
Obviously, it meant that a cooler is sufficient in all sensible conditions, including hot summer etc. And obviously, it means this is not as objective as most think. Because living in different places or having air conditioning at home will have a huge impact on temp headroom.

And I'm not even saying any $50 cooler can cool a 3950X properly. It's way to early to judge this. In order for us to get a decent test sample, 3950X will have to appear in cooler reviews - not the other way round.
The cheapest Noctua cooler rated for full boost is U14S ($70), but - honestly - I'm a bit skeptical.

Earlier I've merely reacted to your statement: "Why buy a $750 CPU and run a $50 cooler? " which didn't really sound like you meant performance in this particular scenario.
It sounded like you think it's lame to pair an expensive CPU with a cheap-ish cooling. That's it.


----------



## IceShroom (Nov 16, 2019)

kapone32 said:


> The PCI lanes on 3rd gen are 4.0 which provide double the throughput of 3.0 in essence the 56 lanes on 3rd gen could theoretically be 112 3.0 lanes. We could theoretically have X399 boards with 4 full 16 slots and the 3 M2 slots.


Thats not how PCI-e works. 1 PCI-e lane means 1 truck. PCI-e 4 has bigger truck than PCI-e 3. You cant cut a truck half and expect it functioning.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Nov 16, 2019)

Uhg the 50$ cooler recommendations is just silly.
Click this link to see what AMD suggests for cooling solution 3950x processor.



			https://www.amd.com/en/processors/3950x-thermal-solutions
		


Didnt see a single air cooler on this list.


----------



## thesmokingman (Nov 16, 2019)

ShrimpBrime said:


> Uhg the 50$ cooler recommendations is just silly.
> Click this link to see what AMD suggests for cooling solution 3950x processor.
> 
> 
> ...



That's cuz they skipped air. That doesn't mean the 3950x is an oven. In fact it's shown to be cooler than the 3900x due to the way the bios was designed to manage the cores. Base boost of 3.3ghz@1v vs 3.8ghz@1.25v... these tricks they employed resulted in lower heat/consumption. That said, the cores are exactly the same, ya run them in EXACT same config and those 4 extra cores will show themselves with higher power draw and heat.

So if one is gonna run a crazy 4.3ghz all core, yea you better have a big arse cooler of some sort on it.



thesmokingman said:


> Level1 dude runs 3950x stock vs heavily overclocked Intel's in a variety of benches. And Level1 was able to hit advertised boost clocks.



You guys need to see this proper review. 9900KS @5.2ghz, 7890XE @4.8ghhz vs stock 3950x. Level1 dude goes thru all the key points w/o the rambling.


----------



## Kissamies (Nov 16, 2019)

I'm surprised that there's no review on TPU yet. But well, I checked io-tech's review (Finnish HW site) and it's better than I even thought. Only if they could get the boost frequency to the advertised clock, there's nothing to comply about.


----------



## AddSub (Nov 16, 2019)

W1zzard said:


> yeah .. not enough samples apparently



They don't like the fact you are still using x87 based SuperPi benchmark, something AMD CPUs are terrible at, all iterations of Ryzen included as well. While x87 instruction set might be little bit of a legacy thing, the fact is you are one of the few reviewers left using it. That said, you should continue using it, legacy intruction set or not. SuperPi is the true benchmarking standard going back two decades now of comparative result history.

But yeah, your 3900X review had it and it was one of first tests run in your review, front and center so to speak. So, I'm sure the AMD marketing deptartment had a memo or two about it all. 

...
..
.


----------



## notb (Nov 16, 2019)

thesmokingman said:


> That's cuz they skipped air. That doesn't mean the 3950x is an oven. In fact it's shown to be cooler than the 3900x due to the way the bios was designed to manage the cores.


It just has more cores and - from what we've seen in some reviews - is limited to the same max power consumption. So, inevitably, it'll be at most as power hungry as 3900X - in some scenario significantly less.


ShrimpBrime said:


> Uhg the 50$ cooler recommendations is just silly.
> Click this link to see what AMD suggests for cooling solution 3950x processor.
> 
> 
> ...


They don't recommend any air cooler, because of the TDP confusion. Because 3950X is very hot at relatively low power consumption.
AMD likely was afraid that people will put 150W air coolers on this CPU and it'll end up in a shitstorm.

But reviews are out and we know that this CPU works fine under good tower coolers (at least the samples provided to testers).

So, instead, they've recommended a bunch of large water coolers, which should provide enough margins even for hot summer / tropics.
And when the CPU melts under a CM 212X, they'll just say: we told you so.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Nov 16, 2019)

notb said:


> It just has more cores and - from what we've seen in some reviews - is limited to the same max power consumption. So, inevitably, it'll be at most as power hungry as 3900X - in some scenario significantly less.
> 
> They don't recommend any air cooler, because of the TDP confusion. Because 3950X is very hot at relatively low power consumption.
> AMD likely was afraid that people will put 150W air coolers on this CPU and it'll end up in a shitstorm.
> ...



Yea it would be best to run liquid cooling in warmer climates I think....

Any how, AMD is stating that the PBO will vary perhaps greatly from system to system and include words like Thermal Paste, Cooling, Bios and so forth.


			https://www.amd.com/en/support/kb/faq/cpu-pb2
		

Sounds like the statement is pretty true, at least there seems to be some that can boost to 4.7ghz and some that cannot. 

However, Cooling may play a big role for that PBO overclocking!! Perhaps it would yield longer boost times running at a lower temperature, as the temp goes up, the clocks go down.

For me, only curious to watch other people spend 750$ on this chip and run an air cooler and hope to see some real comparisons vs liquid cooling. 
Will also be looking at the custom liquid cooling builds and how they fair for overclocking. 
Really would like to see some 5ghz figures on some ambient cooling of one sort or another, even if by means of SMT off and lowered core count.


----------



## Darmok N Jalad (Nov 16, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> look at some other reviews too. Looks like linus and Tom's got good ones. A few, including GN and Anandtech were not able to reach advertised boost by 150 and 200 mhz iirc.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Anandtech got within 50mhz of 4.7:


> With our Ryzen 9 3950X, the on-the-box single core turbo frequency is listed as 4.7 GHz. We tested using the ASRock X570 Taichi motherboard, a very high-end product, using Windows 10 v1909 on AGESA 1004B, on both the High Performance (HP) power plan and the Ryzen High Performance (RHP) power plan. For peak single core frequencies, we were able to see 4525 MHz on the HP plan, and 4650 MHz on the RHP plan. This latter value is pretty much on the button for the on-the-box turbo value (I’m sure some people will disagree about those 50 MHz).


Just guessing, but the curve probably has to do with better chiplet heat dissipation under the 10C/20T load. Since some cores are gated, it can draw more power and operate at higher clocks. Once all the transistors are active, thermal density is at it's highest, so the chip will have to drop clocks and settle in. Essentially, the 3950X hits the TDP wall early.


----------



## phill (Nov 16, 2019)

notb said:


> I said: "when a $50 one does the job". And if a cooler limits boost, it's not doing the job.
> Obviously, it meant that a cooler is sufficient in all sensible conditions, including hot summer etc. And obviously, it means this is not as objective as most think. Because living in different places or having air conditioning at home will have a huge impact on temp headroom.
> 
> And I'm not even saying any $50 cooler can cool a 3950X properly. It's way to early to judge this. In order for us to get a decent test sample, 3950X will have to appear in cooler reviews - not the other way round.
> ...



For me it's always about performance..  I see no reason why you'd put a $750 CPU under air cooling with a $50 cooler even to the point it could handle it (not saying that you wouldn't) but I believe there'd be more people with this sort of CPU having at least an AIO (which is not fair from a top air cooler model depending...) or then custom water cooling.  I've been water cooling CPUs for years and to be honest when I started GPU water cooling as well, I don't regret doing that either with some of the other models of card I have.
But it's just purely mentioned for being a performance based preference..  I don't see the reasoning behind an air cooler with one of these CPUs...  It needs something a little more heavy handed so to speak


----------



## thesmokingman (Nov 16, 2019)

Darmok N Jalad said:


> Anandtech got within 50mhz of 4.7:
> 
> Just guessing, but the curve probably has to do with better chiplet heat dissipation under the 10C/20T load. Since some cores are gated, it can draw more power and operate at higher clocks. Once all the transistors are active, thermal density is at it's highest, so the chip will have to drop clocks and settle in. Essentially, the 3950X hits the TDP wall early.



I wonder if they used the right bios and board. Reviewers were told to use one of four specific boards and their matching bios so it;s not liek they had a choice or much of a choice to use different boards/bios' combos. I don't know what the specifics are but heard from the Level1 tech guy's video that AMD gave them specific instructions. Dunno if there's a correlation there. But some are hitting and others are not.


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 17, 2019)

Darmok N Jalad said:


> Anandtech got within 50mhz of 4.7:


Ty! STill didn't reach it though.


----------



## notb (Nov 17, 2019)

phill said:


> For me it's always about performance..  *I see no reason why you'd put a $750 CPU under air cooling with a $50 cooler* even to the point it could handle it (not saying that you wouldn't) but I believe there'd be more people with this sort of CPU having at least an AIO (which is not fair from a top air cooler model depending...) or then custom water cooling.  I've been water cooling CPUs for years and to be honest when I started GPU water cooling as well, I don't regret doing that either with some of the other models of card I have.


But we are discussing a situation where an air cooler is fine. I'm not sure if it's $50 or $100 at this point - we'll need way more tests on retail parts - not just cherry-picked samples sent to reviewers.

This is what I said: if a $50 cooler works (doesn't limit performance), why get something more robust?
There are multiple decent reasons: upgrade plans, living in extreme conditions, SFF build (i.e. a big tower cooler won't fit).
But a statement like yours instantly suggests snobism / elitism. If that's it - well... just admit it and lets move on.


----------



## robot zombie (Nov 17, 2019)

From what I can see, it's somewhere between a high-end consumer chip and full-on HEDT chip (2950X maybe?) Doesn't have absurd amounts of PCIe lanes or memory capacity but otherwise might actually be a better option than TR for users who only need the cores and don't get anything out of having 60 or whatever PCIe lanes. Really, once you're past that, the 2950X isn't as much of an option, being only ~$60 less and losing out in performance at times. Not to mention if you're buying all-new, not having to shell out for a pricey TR board to get the raw TR performance is a nice plus. Win-win, assuming 20 PCIe lanes and 128 gigs of ram is enough for you. Also, being AM4, you have a wider range of cooling options.

It's an interesting niche they're trying to fill with this. Kind of blurring that line where one *needs* to be looking at HEDT parts. When you have a beast like that available towards the top of the regular consumer level, it starts making less sense to spend hundred and hundreds more on a 'true' HEDT setup. Because you don't need to in order to have a ridiculously powerful and capable CPU... something that'll scratch that crazy itch AND also get a respectable amount of work done for you, whichever matters to you.

But then... you could also say it is *so* far beyond what many serious enthusiasts will even go for, but at the same time might fall short of the real HEDT options in some of the demands usually associated with high core and thread count CPU's. Who is it for? I think it's probably not for everyone, or even most people. I can see this being great for the guy caught in the middle. Like maybe he's a big-time gamer/enthusiast, but there are also times when he goes off the beaten path into heavy workstation/content creation types of things...  while he's sometimes doing things that people get paid good money to do, he's not getting paid for this side stuff, so he can't just buy a full-fledged HEDT machine and tell himself he'll make it back. That guy might really like having a $1000 cpu/mobo combo for a starting point instead. Even serious creators would be sailing on along with it... newcomers could be saving a lot of money getting their start on something that an established pro would also happily use. No longer do they have to go all the way up to basically an enterprise-grade chip to have an impeccably smooth time with their software's CPU-heavy, thread-hungry workloads.

It's cool to see how stuff trickles down from generation to generation with AMD's new CPU's. They're perfectly happy to cannibalize their old parts just as soon as they possibly can. There's been this steady cascade of things climbing the ladder in unison. The buyer's remorse is a running joke among AMD owners now... that whole deal of buying something like a 2600x one day and finding out *the next day* that the 3600x just came out for basically the same price and actually beat-out the 2700x that you would've bought for close to double the money yesterday. And those were considered and still are great! But now, they're f-ing worthless because every new chip surpasses the last gen equivalent that was a tier above it. Kind of a double-edged sword, but it shows good progress... says they're not holding anything back with performance and features by breaking-out the cripple hammer that their contemporaries seem to like using so much lately. Prices went up, but not by that much... and every year, your money goes a pretty good leap further with AMD CPUs.

It's like... if AMD can bring in a 'TR killer' on AM4, it does. I love that they're not worried about undermining their old stack. It's refreshing to see somebody pushing forward like that and just always trying to deliver the best products they can... with the most agressive bins, as soon as they can produce them. They don't just settle in to a niche and stay there. It's almost like they want the goalposts to always be moving away from wherever they are. Again, it's as thought they're actually proud to show people things that are so much better than the awesome chip they just got from last year, that they almost feel ripped off  They want you to know they're making what is your perfect CPU now, obsolete as soon as they're able to.

Seeing these benchmarks along with the price, I definitely feel that. I just bought a 3900x not too long ago... heh. Unfortunately my mobo isn't quiiite up for the 3950x anyway, but it still kind of hurts. Still, the 3900X is already well into super-overkill territory, especially if you're in that majority of people for which the 'power' of a TR-type of chip does literally nothing for your experience on the machine. In most cases, you'd be spending the extra $250 just to know you've got a bastard-child of TR in a sleeper setup. It's just that... while the performance and the value are favorable for where it sits, there are only so many people out there who are actually positioned to appreciate it. The rest could get a 3900x for $200 less (not including savings on the mobo) if they're feeling froggy and get into some moderate to heavy threaded workloads often enough to pay-out for a good time, or maybe a 3700x if they want a high-end, general-purpose build, or a 3600x if they're completely normal and just wanna play games n look at... stuff on google chrome. The people on the opposite side of the line would probably want to look at TR instead. Kind of a weird dichotomy imo. Makes me wonder how well these things will actually do. Maybe people who previously wouldn't consider HEDT but might've still wanted something like that might consider a 3950X instead. Who knows?

I dunno... in aura the 3950X kinda rings true to the whole 'keep your mobo' idea that they like to parade around. Now, you don't even need a fancy TR board and cooler to have what is, in many important ways, every bit as good as a last-gen TR. You're one step removed from having a proper HEDT chip, for well under $1000. So that's something new. I wonder what performance aspects and features the next gen will have. What's gonna trickle-down next?


----------



## notb (Nov 17, 2019)

ShrimpBrime said:


> However, Cooling may play a big role for that PBO overclocking!! Perhaps it would yield longer boost times running at a lower temperature, as the temp goes up, the clocks go down.
> 
> For me, only curious to watch other people spend 750$ on this chip and run an air cooler and hope to see some real comparisons vs liquid cooling.
> Will also be looking at the custom liquid cooling builds and how they fair for overclocking.
> Really would like to see some 5ghz figures on some ambient cooling of one sort or another, even if by means of SMT off and lowered core count.


For someone interested in OC, water-cooling seems to be the only sensible choice. That doesn't concern me at all. I'm only interested in the expected performance out of the box.

And here's the thing... Ryzen fans repeat "value" in almost every sentence... so what about it?
Lets say a $50 cooler can't handle full 3950X potential. Lets say you'd have to sacrifice 10% on all cores (less on few/single core).
You spend $800 total.
For a "full 3950X" with one of the recommended AiO, you'd have to pay over $900.
So you get 11% more performance for 13% more money.
And the resulting "limited 3950X" is still faster than 3900X - i.e. it's a sensible option.

I know that running a CPU below its potential may be a hard thing to swallow for some people on this forum, but the figures don't lie.
With these characteristics and cooling needs, 3950X is able to "fill the gap" between 3900X and 3950X - on both performance and system price.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Nov 17, 2019)

notb said:


> For someone interested in OC, water-cooling seems to be the only sensible choice. That doesn't concern me at all. I'm only interested in the expected performance out of the box.
> 
> And here's the thing... Ryzen fans repeat "value" in almost every sentence... so what about it?
> Lets say a $50 cooler can't handle full 3950X potential. Lets say you'd have to sacrifice 10% on all cores (less on few/single core).
> ...



AIO is bottom line liquid cooling. Bottom line. Its called liquid cooling just by chance because it has a very small amount of liquid. 
To me AIO is kinda joke. Some AIO is ok... But most are garbage. I can give the list of reasons why, but not here to make people hate on me lol.....

Id recommend a full on ccustom lool. Not AIO. Was just sharing what AMD suggests. Id never suggest AIO as end cooling solution.


----------



## yotano211 (Nov 17, 2019)

IceShroom said:


> Thats not how PCI-e works. 1 PCI-e lane means 1 truck. PCI-e 4 has bigger truck than PCI-e 3. You cant cut a truck half and expect it functioning.


Can you cut a truck in half and still work, thats why there are 1/2 ton trucks.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Nov 17, 2019)

yotano211 said:


> Can you cut a truck in half and still work, thats why there are 1/2 ton trucks.


lol, you only cut the weight capacity in half? So it takes 2 cycles instead of one to complete a task. That's a considerable difference.


----------



## yotano211 (Nov 17, 2019)

ShrimpBrime said:


> lol, you only cut the weight capacity in half? So it takes 2 cycles instead of one to complete a task. That's a considerable difference.


Theres also 1/4 ton trucks and those ISIS trucks


----------



## John Naylor (Nov 17, 2019)

W1zzard said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if they picked the reviewer CPUs out of a huge sample size, which could explain why so few samples



My guess is they don't like the test you run.  For my own and for the users we build for, basically, we look at :

- Gaming Performance ... AMD hasn't won any of these yet
- Adobe Photoshop and Premiere Performance ... the $750 3950X edges Intel's $450 CPU by a 8% in premiere.... For $300, worthwhile in a proiduction shop, but not for the hobbyist.  Then again in a production shop your well up into 3 fiures with your CPU budget
- AutoCAD performance - Haven't seen yet
- Office Suites - usually they split these but the differences are too small for a human to observe.

I don't care how fast it does [insert all the things we don't ever do, do once in a build's lifetime or benchmarks] because that's not how we make  a living and it's not how we spend our spare time.  I can not fathom why performance in benchmarks, scientific apps, one time uses is relavent to chooisng a CPU that you gonna keep for 4 years.

I can't even look at the yootoobers ... how there's guys get views amazes me ...I mean Jay drilled thru a MoBo to mount a cooler ruining a $400 MB ... GN, Linix. no thanks.   If you are not intelligent enough to put your thoughts together in text ... not interested.

Desktop King ?  What % of desktop users actually have the apps that will actually show a ROI here ?  *It's a very impressive CPU* with but with very, very small market niche. Too much money for too little gain for the hobbyist and not enough for the production shop.


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 17, 2019)

John Naylor said:


> AutoCAD performance


Do you have experience using AutoCAD in a professional space? Would you be willing to share what's worth testing, possibly with test files?

Also, anyone doing FEM simulation or similar?


----------



## phill (Nov 17, 2019)

notb said:


> But we are discussing a situation where an air cooler is fine. I'm not sure if it's $50 or $100 at this point - we'll need way more tests on retail parts - not just cherry-picked samples sent to reviewers.
> 
> This is what I said: if a $50 cooler works (doesn't limit performance), why get something more robust?
> There are multiple decent reasons: upgrade plans, living in extreme conditions, SFF build (i.e. a big tower cooler won't fit).
> But a statement like yours instantly suggests snobism / elitism. If that's it - well... just admit it and lets move on.



I'll put it this way, unless my PC's are crunching, are a server, built for the misses or daughters, everything else is water cooled because I want to push it beyond it's stock abilities   I'd do the same with that CPU if I could afford one right now.  This is why my 5960X used to run at 4.60Ghz 24/7, because it was water cooled..  I never even tried it under air cooling...  Even on hot days during the summer I'm not sure an air cooler would handle it so well at 4.20Ghz as it runs now (cruncher also as a gaming rig).  I have personal limits of what I will run CPUs at, so temps being one of them, I'll water cool it.
Air cooling has it's place, but with that sort of CPU I wouldn't believe air was enough..  

Call it whatever you want.  If I spend that amount of money, I'd like the best from it regardless of what cooling it means (unless it's sub zero then it's not useful to most foke....)


----------



## Tomgang (Nov 17, 2019)

I asked before if any one has seen a review of 3950X with a good air cooler and I have found one where they used a Noctua NH-D15 in a *single fan configuration* and they manage to overclock it to 4.375 ghz all core at 1.375 volts with temp hovering around 98 degrees Celsius I assume. Not to shappy if you ask me on a cpu recommended for water cooling and given they only used one fan, temperature cut be lowered even more with a second fan mounted on this dual tower cooler.

Heck given the results of this review and the experience I have had with my current cooling setup for my I7 980x, I think with my planed cooling setup, I cut get temp below 90 degrees Celsius with the same clocks and voltage. I am planning to use a Noctua NH-D15 chromax black and replace the two original fans with 2 or Mayne 3 of noctua industrial IPPC 120 mm 3000 rpm fans that I already own and use Thermal Grizzly kryonaut paste. I tested temp difference with the stock fans on noctua NH-D14 I have now and with IPPC fans and thermal grizzly kryonaut paste in sted and that lovered temp by 8 to 10 degrees Celsius on my I7 980x at a 4.4 ghz oc and the same voltage. Temp lovered from around 85 degrees Celsius on hottest core to 75-77 degrees Celsius on hottest core with a noise penalty off cause. But I can live with that and hence why I will do this again as temp got a significant amount lower than with stock fans. Also as I said before, I am not in the the water cooling area cause of price specially for custom loops, more maintenance needed for water cooling, parts has to be replaced more often, more parts to fail and the risk of leaking water. I want good cooling that are not to expensive, but more importantly more reliable, less things to go wrong and less maintenance needed and air cooling fits that part way better.

Review can be read here for those interested.

https://hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/136391-amd-ryzen-9-3950x/


----------



## HD64G (Nov 17, 2019)

I would easily suggest a twin-tower air cooler (i.e. the Skythe Fuma 2) for any Ryzen CPU as they consume up to 150-160W maximum on stock settings. For oc though, one might need a custom wc setup depending on the silicon quality of the chip.


----------



## phill (Nov 17, 2019)

One of the first reviews I'd read of it and makes me drool after one even more!!  That said, AMD is now king of the hill for me..


----------



## thebluebumblebee (Nov 17, 2019)

Puget Systems has a bunch of application specific benchmarks up, and they also included the 16 core Intel Core i9 9960X.



			https://www.pugetsystems.com/all_articles.php?filter[]=Processors
		


For those wondering what niche this CPU fills, may I suggest the pro-amateur.  In the past, these people had the choice of a $300+ CPU with a 64 GB limit or jumping to a $2000 CPU.


----------



## Zach_01 (Nov 17, 2019)

Here are my thoughts about the whole cooling subject...

First of all I have an AIO water cooler, the H110i 280mm (pump 2300+ or 2800+rpm, fans 500~2200rpm) which I purchase 130€ about 3 years ago. This was for my previous setup with a FX8370 OCed to 4.6GHz (close to 200W if not over). And now is on the current system with Ryzen 3600 stock. I’ve set a custom curve so the 2x140mm working from 900 to 1400rpm with quiet low noise level. Pump speed always at silent (2300+rpm) Ambient about 26~28C and *no case.*

The CPU at idle/light stays under 40C avg at about 50C when gaming and low-middle 60 at stress test. And I’m talking about the hot-spot.
Water temp 27~29C (ambient+1C) at idle/light and 29~31C for gaming/stress test.

Is it better than a top tower air cooler cost half, or even less than half that 130€?
Well for me there is no straight answer. It depends from the setup, and what you are looking for.
If best cooling (AIO vs Air) is the only goal and want to keep it stock without OC, excluding noise levels then the AIO is not worth paying double. If you consider noise levels the scale is going a little more to AIO side but still. One of the benefits of AIO is the significant larger surface area if we are talking for 280~360mm meaning more airflow or the same with lower rpm(lower noise).

You have to consider also the case and the general air flow of a system. Usually those on-line tests are taking place outside of a case and do not represent real life.
Both systems out of case in 22C environment senario diminishes the whatever benefits of a large AIO over Air cooling.
When inside the case the air cooler has only 1 place that can be, and the AIO rad can be put in few different places and with 2 different configurations (push or pull). You can even place the rad outside of a case if you want with a little case modding.

I can acknowledge that purchasing an AIO is premium paying for a few or none benefits depending the senario.
It all comes down to personal preference... will to pay this premium over Air... and considering all aspects of usage like cases/no cases, ambient temps (winter/summer), overclocking or not... etc...

If I haven’t already own the AIO probably I would have gone with a ~50€ air cooler with the 3600 (I don’t like the stealth stock cooler), even if I had a 3700X/3800X, mostly because I don’t use cases and I don’t have to consider system air temp/flow.

If I was paying a 1000+€ CPU/MB combo then I would strongly consider to pay the premium of a large 280~360mm AIO. It makes sense to me personally.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Nov 18, 2019)

W1zzard said:


> Do you have experience using AutoCAD in a professional space? Would you be willing to share what's worth testing, possibly with test files?


Would love to see some AutoCAD benchmarks!


----------



## biffzinker (Nov 18, 2019)

Ryzen 9 3950X on Good and Bad B450 Motherboards
					

As we anticipated when we reviewed AMD's new flagship 16-core Ryzen 9 3950X, rather than testing it on the very high-end Gigabyte X570 Aorus Xtreme, we want...




					www.techspot.com
				




Edit: I'm all set for a 3950X on this B450 Tomahawk.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Nov 18, 2019)

biffzinker said:


> Ryzen 9 3950X on Good and Bad B450 Motherboards
> 
> 
> As we anticipated when we reviewed AMD's new flagship 16-core Ryzen 9 3950X, rather than testing it on the very high-end Gigabyte X570 Aorus Xtreme, we want...
> ...


Unless you need the extra 4 cores, go with the 3900X.


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 18, 2019)

thesmokingman said:


> **Also to put this into context, Hardware Unboxed tested the 3950x with the same all core overclock as the 3900x and when run this way the 3950x drew 30% more power. This puts it inline with it's extra 4 cores. Thus imo its not down to binning, its how they balanced their voltage vs core usage. Btw, the 3950x overclocks exactly like the 3900x in allcore overclocks, it's not anymore special... ie. 4.3ghz all core around 1.32v.


It's a combination of both. I'd bet good money says if they had enough of these ready a couple of months back, we would have seen them. Really, the whole ryzen lineup is around 4.2-4.3GHz with that voltage as ballpark. No matter what CPU, it seems like that voltage give or take .025 is about the limit for most ambient cooling solutions and where the clocks always end up.


----------

