# AMD Announces Ryzen 9 3950X, Details 3rd Gen Ryzen Threadripper, unlocked Athlon 3000G



## btarunr (Nov 7, 2019)

AMD today announced four new desktop processors across three very diverse markets. To begin with, the company crowned its socket AM4 mainstream desktop platform with the mighty new Ryzen 9 3950X processor. Next up, it released its new baseline entry-level APU, the Athlon 3000G. Lastly, it detailed the 3rd generation Ryzen Threadripper HEDT processor family with two initial models, the Ryzen Threadripper 3960X and the flagship Ryzen Threadripper 3970X. The company also formally released its AGESA Combo PI 1.0.0.4B microcode, and with it, introduced a killer new feature for all "Zen 2" based Ryzen processors, called ECO Mode. 

The Ryzen 9 3950X is a 16-core/32-thread processor in the AM4 package, compatible with all socket AM4 motherboards, provided they have the latest BIOS update with AGESA Combo PI 1.0.0.4B microcode. The processor comes with clock-speeds of 3.50 GHz base, with 4.70 GHz maximum boost frequency, and the same 105 W TDP as the 12-core Ryzen 9 3900X. With 512 KB of dedicated L2 cache per core, and 64 MB of shared L3 cache, the chip has a mammoth 72 MB of "total cache." 



 

 




According to performance numbers put out by AMD, the Ryzen 9 3950X offers up to 22 percent higher single-threaded performance than the Ryzen 7 2700X as tested in Cinebench R20, and a whopping 79 percent higher multi-threaded performance than the Core i9-9900K. The company also claims gaming performance parity with the i9-9900K. The company also claims huge performance-per-Watt gains over the i9-9900K. Available for purchase from November 25, 2019, the Ryzen 9 3950X is priced at USD $749 (MSRP). The retail PIB box package lacks a cooling solution, and AMD recommends at least a 240 mm x 140 mm AIO liquid CPU cooler to go with this chip. 



 

 

 

AMD also sealed the bottom end of its socket AM4 processor lineup with the new Athlon 3000G, which adds a few segment-first features. The 3000G is based on the 12 nm "Picasso" silicon that combines CPU cores based on the "Zen+" microarchitecture with an iGPU based on the "Vega" graphics architecture. The 3000G is configured with a 2-core/4-thread CPU and the Radeon Vega 3 onboard graphics that has 3 "Vega" NGCUs. The CPU is clocked at 3.50 GHz, which is a 300 MHz gain over the Athlon 200GE. This time around, AMD has also provided an unlocked base-clock multiplier for the CPU, letting you overclock it. The Radeon Vega 3 iGPU is configured with 192 stream processors, and 1100 MHz engine clock, a 100 MHz gain over that of the 200GE. Available for purchase from November 19, 2019, the Athlon 3000G is priced at just USD $49, and could make for an entertaining little toy for enthusiasts, as well as a formidable chip for home-theater, NAS, or other low-power desktop builds. 



 

 

 

Moving on to the most exciting part of the day's announcements, AMD unveiled its 3rd generation Ryzen Threadripper high-end desktop (HEDT) processor series, debuting with two models, the Threadripper 3960X and the Threadripper 3970X. The two are based on the new sTRX4 CPU socket, and are being launched alongside the new AMD TRX40 chipset. The socket itself looks physically similar to the older TR4 socket, and offers cooler compatibility, meaning that any CPU cooler or water-block that's compatible with TR4 will be compatible with sTRX4 as well. Your only consideration should be the cooler's thermal load capacity, as both the processors being announced today have a TDP rating of 280 W. The 3rd gen Ryzen processors themselves have no backwards-compatibility with older AMD X399 chipset motherboards, nor would older Threadrippers work on TRX40 chipset motherboards.



 

 

 

As for the processors themselves, the Ryzen Threadripper 3960X is a 24-core/48-thread beast priced at USD $1,399 (same exact price as the previous generation 24-core Threadripper 2970WX). The 3960X offers frequencies of 3.80 GHz base with up 4.50 GHz maximum boost, and a gargantuan 140 MB total cache (L2+L3). The Threadripper 3970X, on the other hand, is a 32-core/64-thread monstrosity priced at USD $1,999. Despite its extreme core-count, it doesn't skimp on clock-speeds, offering 3.70 GHz nominal clocks, and 4.50 GHz maximum boost frequency. Both chips will be available to purchase on November 25, 2019.

Interestingly, AMD has launched no HEDT chips priced under $1000 this time around, which is where Intel retreated its 10th generation Core X lineup to. AMD says that its 2nd generation Ryzen Threadripper chips are still competitive with Intel's HEDT chips, and suggested that consumers to pick up those chips instead. We interpret this as AMD preparing a round of price-cuts to 2nd gen Threadrippers already in the market, and possibly getting its motherboard partners to do the same with their X399 motherboards. 

The 3rd generation Ryzen Threadripper is a derivative of the company's "Rome" multi-chip module, featuring five chips - four 7 nm "Zen 2" 8-core CPU chiplets (or CCDs), and one 14 nm I/O Controller die (or ICOD). The four CCDs talk to the ICOD over the Infinity Fabric interconnect, which has doubled in bandwidth over the previous generation. The ICOD on the sTRX4 Threadrippers are configured with a monolithic quad-channel DDR4 memory interface that supports up to 2 TB of memory, including ECC support. 



 
The PCI-Express root-complex of the 3rd generation Ryzen Threadripper is massive, and fascinating. It puts out a total of 64 PCI-Express gen 4.0 lanes, wired out as follows: 
48 lanes toward PCI-Express x16 slots (x16/x16/x16), which can be further segmented two x8 slots, each
8 lanes toward chipset-bus. That's right, AMD is using an extra-wide PCI-Express 4.0 x8 pipe between the CPU and the TRX40 chipset
8 general purpose lanes, either configured as two M.2 NVMe slots with x4 wiring, each, or as x4 motherboard slots, or even additional SATA ports
As described in the list above, the move to bolster chipset-bus with PCI-Express 4.0 x8, quadrupling bandwidth over the previous generation TR4 platform (which uses PCI-Express 3.0 x4), is probably one of the reasons AMD had to come up with a new CPU socket. 

The AMD TRX40 chipset is physically similar to the X570 and is designed in-house by AMD for GlobalFoundries 12 nm FinFET node. Its PCI-Express gen 4.0 switch is configured differently to accommodate the wider x8 chipset-bus. The TRX40's PCIe budget is laid out as follows. 
8 lanes toward chipset-bus (this can't be changed)
8 general purpose lanes (for external onboard devices such as GbE or WLAN controllers, additional USB controllers, etc., or even wired out as slots)
Bloc of 4 lanes configurable as four SATA 6 Gbps ports, general purpose lanes for slots, or an M.2/U.2 NVMe connection with x4 wiring
A second such bloc of 4 lanes
For a motherboard that has at least four SATA 6 Gbps ports, the TRX40 chipset hence effectively puts out 12 downstream PCIe gen 4.0 lanes.



 
Lastly, AMD announced a fascinating new platform feature called ECO Mode. Applicable to all socket AM4 processors that have "Zen 2" CPU cores (Ryzen 5 3500 and above), ECO Mode is essentially a cTDP (configurable TDP) implementation for the desktop platform. You flick a toggle in Ryzen Master, and the processor's TDP is capped at 65 Watts on-the-fly. So when not gaming or doing serious work, you can turn on ECO Mode and ensure your processor never draws more than 65 Watts. For the mighty Ryzen 9 3950X, ECO Mode offers 77 percent performance, but 44 percent lower power-draw, and 7°C lower temperatures.

The entire slide-deck follows. 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## kapone32 (Nov 7, 2019)

That Athlon 300G looks mighty interesting........where are the B550 boards to go with this?


----------



## TheLostSwede (Nov 7, 2019)

kapone32 said:


> That Athlon 300G looks mighty interesting........where are the B550 boards to go with this?


Considering it's Zen+, B450 is plenty fine...


----------



## neatfeatguy (Nov 7, 2019)

Wish I had $1100 to get a new CPU/MB/RAM, I wouldn't mind having a 3950x just for the sake of having one....

Then again, I wish I had $500-600 for a 3700x plus MB/RAM.

It will be nice to read through the reviews when they get released. I just feels good to see that AMD is back in the game after all these years of playing catch up.


----------



## Frick (Nov 7, 2019)

Reviews plz. Also, will there be such a thing as a 3990WX? I liked the WX name.


----------



## kapone32 (Nov 7, 2019)

Frick said:


> Reviews plz. Also, will there be such a thing as a 3990WX? I liked the WX name.



Probably for the price of a decent used car.


----------



## Lorec (Nov 7, 2019)

@phill there we go   
now I just need availability in my local shops


----------



## fancucker (Nov 7, 2019)

Lets see how much power consumption and temps jump on 3950x stress testing and if they can achieve sustained boost clocks. And also if it can melt the promoted A320 and B350 boards


----------



## RH92 (Nov 7, 2019)

+ 600 dollars for 8 more cores when comparing 3970X and 3960X is just a HUGE SCAM considering 3700X cost 330 dollars ( that's including the substrate , IMC die , IHS , reatail package , margins etc etc ) !  AMD deserves a lot of credit but they also deserve a lot of flak when they do things like this ......


----------



## Slizzo (Nov 7, 2019)

RH92 said:


> + 600 dollars for 8 more cores when comparing 3970X and 3960X is just a HUGE SCAM considering 3700X cost 330 dollars ( that's including the substrate , IMC die , IHS , reatail package , margins etc etc ) !  AMD deserves a lot of credit but they also deserve a lot of flak when they do things like this ......



Are we also forgetting that you get 64 PCI-E lanes, 2 more memory channels, and a host of other features for those $600 extra dollars?


----------



## Arpeegee (Nov 7, 2019)

With no competition from Intel they can set their prices where they want...

Over the last two years as the main competitors push their prices up AMD has been going with the flow to capitalizes on this (examples: Vega 64, RX 590, RX 5700 XT and most likely RX 5500). All those products should have launched $50-$100 less but because of lack of competition Nvidia and Intel got to determine the goal posts.

Now that AMD is on top with Threadripper, it gets to act as it's other competitors. Personally this is bad in my opinion and I forsee the enthusiast PC space getting smaller in the next few years as regular folks get priced out of the market, shrinking the high end gaming PC market, and causing developers to once again prioritize consoles and have bad PC ports.


----------



## phill (Nov 7, 2019)

Lorec said:


> @phill there we go
> now I just need availability in my local shops



Now all I need is a lot of money and I can get one or two   

Amazing news!!  I cannot wait for the reviews on these CPUs!!


----------



## bug (Nov 7, 2019)

I wouldn't call Threadrippers, desktop processors. Nobody needs that many threads to run Firefox or Office. These are proper workstation CPUs. And impressive ones at that.


----------



## Nordic (Nov 7, 2019)

bug said:


> I wouldn't call Threadrippers, desktop processors. Nobody needs that many threads to run Firefox or Office. These are proper workstation CPUs. And impressive ones at that.


While that may be true, the average news commenter only sees these products for their use cases.


----------



## RH92 (Nov 7, 2019)

Slizzo said:


> Are we also forgetting that you get 64 PCI-E lanes, 2 more memory channels, and a host of other features for those $600 extra dollars?



Oh so  3970X brings 64 PCI-E lanes, 2 more memory channels, and a host of other features  compared to 3960X  for 600 extra dollars ?  We learn new things every day ...... LOL use your brain before posting man !

Im comparing 3970X to 3960X ( hence the 600 extra dollars )  , the only thing that 3970X brings over 3960X is 8 more cores and 4mb of extra cache . I used the 3700X example to just show that 8 cores aren't even remotely near to cost 300 extra dollars let alone 600 ! If you believe that paying 600 dollars for 8cores and 4mb cache extra isn't a rip-off  then what can i say ............


----------



## ShurikN (Nov 7, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> Considering it's Zen+, B450 is plenty fine...


I would go as far as to say even B450 is an overkill. A320 would be fine (if it would be supported by MoBo makers.)


----------



## Agent_D (Nov 7, 2019)

Slizzo said:


> Are we also forgetting that you get 64 PCI-E lanes, 2 more memory channels, and a host of other features for those $600 extra dollars?



44 (36 usable) for 3950X and 88 (72 usable) on the HEDT pieces for PCI-E lanes 

Also, giving AMD flak for a 32c/64t when Intel has been charging (per core) insanely more for essentially forever? Could it be cheaper? Likely, but it completely smashes the pricing scam Intel has been stiffing consumers with for ages.


----------



## bug (Nov 7, 2019)

Nordic said:


> While that may be true, the average news commenter only sees these products for their use cases.


Plus, there should be a penalty for lumping the 3000G together with 3970X. Like death or even something harsh


----------



## champsilva (Nov 7, 2019)

Is Intel actually better price/perf ration than AMD?







90% best case scenario, but the 10980XE 18c/36t costs less than half the price.


----------



## techguymaxc (Nov 7, 2019)

champsilva said:


> Is Intel actually better price/perf ration than AMD?
> 
> 90% best case scenario, but the 10980XE 18c/36t costs less than half the price.



Yes.  

Very disappointed in 3rd gen. Threadripper pricing.  I will not be adopting this platform right out of the gate as I have with previous HEDT platforms.  If AMD releases a 64-core SKU and adjusts their pricing, I will reconsider.  

I get it, these are the highest core-count HEDT chips on the market right now and Intel doesn't appear to have anything that can compete in well-threaded workloads outside of the monstrous W-3175x which carries its own monstrous price tag.  These chips carry a price premium, and it is justifiable in large part.  However, as a current X299 owner I am not prepared to drop another $2500-$3000 simply to double my core count, and see a less than linear performance improvement in the majority of workloads.  The value proposition is not there, for me.


----------



## Deathy (Nov 7, 2019)

RH92 said:


> + 600 dollars for 8 more cores when comparing 3970X and 3960X is just a HUGE SCAM considering 3700X cost 330 dollars


Shouldn't the $1400 price tag also be a scam then? 3700x times 3 is 24 cores for $990? Seems to me the 3970x should be priced at $1870 if you look at the base price for the entry level 3960x (1400 : 24 * 32). Looking at it that way, it is $130 more expensive, which is in line with other processors. I can get the 3000G for $50, 2C/4T, but I cannot get a 8C/16T CPU from AMD for $200. Where is your outrage there?

Either everything is a scam or people will spend the money on the CPU that best suits their need. It's not like there is false or deceptive advertising or they are forced to buy AMD at gun point. You really need to adjust your outrage meter to normal, non-internet levels.



> 44 (36 usable) for 3950X


How does the 3950x on AM4 get that many PCIe lanes? Are you counting the X570 chipset in there as well? AM4 CPUs generally only have 16+4+4 (with some APUs even less I think).


----------



## HD64G (Nov 7, 2019)

When 18C from Intel cost $2000 until now and Intel is forced to sell the same thing renamed for half of it, AMD is already leading the HEDT market. So, they can easily sell a 32C that is on average 50% faster for double the 18C from Intel, especially when the 3950X is comparable to Intel's 18C in perfromance being much cheaper when included the platform's cost.AMD has chosen to sell normal desktop CPUs for more than sensible prices for their performance and will charge a lot (but still close to Intel's $/core cost although AMD is faster now) for the Threadripper Zen2 CPUs since they don't have any competition at all. Very smart financial and marketing tactics from AMD imho.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Nov 7, 2019)

I don't want the 3rd gen Threadripper. I want that R9 3950X!


----------



## Agent_D (Nov 7, 2019)

Deathy said:


> Shouldn't the $1400 price tag also be a scam then? 3700x times 3 is 24 cores for $990? Seems to me the 3970x should be priced at $1870 if you look at the base price for the entry level 3960x (1400 : 24 * 32). Looking at it that way, it is $130 more expensive, which is in line with other processors. I can get the 3000G for $50, 2C/4T, but I cannot get a 8C/16T CPU from AMD for $200. Where is your outrage there?
> 
> Either everything is a scam or people will spend the money on the CPU that best suits their need. It's not like there is false or deceptive advertising or they are forced to buy AMD at gun point. You really need to adjust your outrage meter to normal, non-internet levels.
> 
> ...



From what I've read/seen, it's going to be specific X570 boards that have this many lanes available, unlikely that every X570 board will have/support them.


----------



## Tomgang (Nov 7, 2019)

But I want 64 cores, where are my 64 cores...

Yikes threadripper cost a pretty penny. Guess AMD is now doing what Intel dit before and TRX40 boards is not gonna be cheap either. Leaked prices motherboards at 500 and 900 USD. So lest say 500 USD for a TRX40 board and 1399 USD for cpu + cooling solution and memory. Not a cheap upgrade.

Intels line up is not that existing either. Same old 14 NM rebranding bullshit and 10980XE is also a round 250 USD more expensive than ryzen 9 3950X.

So yeah I have talk about it for long now. But I can now say for sure. Ryzen 9 3950X with a good X570 board is what will replace my old Intel X58/I7 980X setup. Threadripper is over my budget and intels offer is the same boring rebrand 14 nm.

So I better get my greasy hands in a 3950X as soon as possible. Can't wait for an upgrade. But I hope a NOCTUA NH-D15 can keep this thing cool as amd recommend an AIO. It's just i am not a fan of water cooling.


----------



## Dave65 (Nov 7, 2019)

DROOLS over them TR parts. But that Athlon looks mighty interesting also for my youngest grand child.


----------



## Metroid (Nov 7, 2019)

September has become November and intel most likely, done for. Now the only thing that matters is to see if 16 cores 32 threads really work without problems with dual channel. I would never buy the 3950x before the benchmarks, so I advise any to do the same..


----------



## dicktracy (Nov 7, 2019)

No more cheap prices. No buy.


----------



## phanbuey (Nov 7, 2019)

It was only a matter of time before the sticker price was going to creep up.

Intel will be price / perf for a while then there will be a 'transition' generation like the original conroe vs K10 where we will get an e6600 for cheap, then they will go back to premium pricing.



Metroid said:


> September has become November and intel most likely, done for. Now the only thing that matters is to see if 16 cores 32 threads really work without problems with dual channel. I would never buy the 3950x before the benchmarks, so I advise any to do the same..



It will just be a faster and slightly hotter 3900x methinks...  Not sure it will  be worth the $$ for the large majority of use cases.


----------



## kapone32 (Nov 7, 2019)

The silver lining on the dark cloud of TR40 will be that people will still be able to get into HEDT but they will have to get X399. I can see X399 boards like the Gigabyte Designaire dropping to under $400 and some of the other ones like As Rock Phantom and Asus Prime dropping to the mid $200 range. When the 3950X goes into stores the 2950X should be around $500 and the 2920X around $300. This should put the 1900X under $200 and the 1920X in the range of $250.  The 1950X will probably be $350 or $400. I know that the IPC gains are realized in Ryzen2 TR4 processors but with all of that throughput X399 should satisfy most enthusiasts wishes. As far as the 3950X having 44 PCI-E lanes they would have to release new boards under X570 as no board currently supports that.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Nov 7, 2019)

at least AMD is worth every cent than (sh)Intel's current offerings. I don't mind spending $750 for such beastly CPU on the mainstream platform. As long it floors the i9-9900K or KS (whatever Intel wanna name it), that's good for me. Also, imagine enabling ECO Mode on the 3950X, dropping the TDP to 65W when doing light work. on a 240mm AIO CLC or custom loop, temps will be in the low 40C or cooler. Intel is done for. Losing more grounds to AMD if they weren't so full of themselves, recycling the old 14nm from Skylake all the way to Ice Lake or whatever-Lake they're releasing. Also, adding more PCIe lanes & reserving for HEDTs is a big mistake. Too little too late.


----------



## DeOdView (Nov 7, 2019)

neatfeatguy said:


> Wish I had $1100 to get a new CPU/MB/RAM, I wouldn't mind having a 3950x just for the sake of having one....
> 
> Then again, I wish I had $500-600 for a 3700x plus MB/RAM.
> 
> It will be nice to read through the reviews when they get released. I just feels good to see that AMD is back in the game after all these years of playing catch up.



LOL  At least now I know I'm not alone.  I grew up.... urghh... ok OLD...



RH92 said:


> + 600 dollars for 8 more cores when comparing 3970X and 3960X is just a HUGE SCAM considering 3700X cost 330 dollars ( that's including the substrate , IMC die , IHS , reatail package , margins etc etc ) !  AMD deserves a lot of credit but they also deserve a lot of flak when they do things like this ......



What is your thought on Intel?


----------



## Deleted member 171912 (Nov 7, 2019)

New gen HEDT CPU

Excellent 2nd gen Threadripper was for enthusiasts and scientists. Sorry AMD, but 3rd gen Threadripper is for scientists (workstations) only. Sad to say, but old/new 10980XE will be better choice for enthusiasts than new 3rd gen Threadripper (server CPU). And because difference between 3950 a 3960 is so BIG, 10980XE will be new HEDT entry point CPU soon.

Bye, bye Threadripper.


----------



## kapone32 (Nov 7, 2019)

rblc said:


> New gen HEDT CPU
> 
> Excellent 2nd gen Threadripper was for enthusiasts and scientists. Sorry AMD, but 3rd gen Threadripper is for scientists (workstations) only. Sad to say, but old/new 10980XE will be better choice for enthusiasts than new 3rd gen Threadripper (server CPU). And because difference between 3950 a 3960 is so BIG, 10980XE will be new HEDT entry point CPU soon.
> 
> Bye, bye Threadripper.



Umm I don't think so X399 will still be viable and provide more PCI_E lanes than 10980XE.


----------



## GoldenX (Nov 7, 2019)

Kinda lame we don't have 4 core Zen2 options.
Why do people insist on using a 32 core CPU for gaming? It's a goddamn workstation CPU, it's intended for that kind of work load only.


----------



## TheinsanegamerN (Nov 7, 2019)

These are incredibly powerful chips. 32 cores, 128MB of L3 cache, 4.5 GHz boost speed, 64 PCIe 4.0 lanes....that is a LOT of tech in a very small space. Sure, its 4x the price for 2x the cores and cahce of a 3950x, but you also get more then double the PCIE 4.0 lanes, from 20 to 44 (THAT aint cheap) plus additional lanes for NVMe and SATA storage, a quad channel DDR4 controller, in a niche market. It's a newer, more powerful platform with better expansion opportunity.

But apparently AMD isnt allowed to sell high margin CPUs. If they are not barrgins, AMD is no better then hitler to the peanut gallery. You guys realize the $500 12 core 3900x isnt going away, right? You can still get lots of cores on the cheap, stop whining you dont have the money for a $2K CPU. If you want AMD to compete they need the money to fight intel's massive R+D budget.


----------



## Nater (Nov 7, 2019)

Deathy said:


> Shouldn't the $1400 price tag also be a scam then? 3700x times 3 is 24 cores for $990? Seems to me the 3970x should be priced at $1870 if you look at the base price for the entry level 3960x (1400 : 24 * 32). Looking at it that way, it is $130 more expensive, which is in line with other processors. I can get the 3000G for $50, 2C/4T, but I cannot get a 8C/16T CPU from AMD for $200. Where is your outrage there?
> 
> Either everything is a scam or people will spend the money on the CPU that best suits their need. It's not like there is false or deceptive advertising or they are forced to buy AMD at gun point. You really need to adjust your outrage meter to normal, non-internet levels.
> 
> ...



I'm with you.  I see it from another lens as well - I don't have to build a WHOLE other computer to get nearly the same performance.  1x 32 core threadripper system is going to be cheaper/easier than 4x 8c Ryzen rigs.  I shudder at just opening all the boxes and assembly alone.  You're paying a small premium to get it all under one hood, but it sure beats having to manage 4 times the hardware and hoping your software supports running over a network.


----------



## xkm1948 (Nov 7, 2019)

Pricing is a bit meh considering Intel's new pricing system for their HEDT.

I assume no AVX-512. Also now officially confirmed no X399 support for Gen3 TR so no upgrade path for the TR system we have in lab. Real bummer.

I will wait around and see some scientific computing benchmark first.


----------



## Tomgang (Nov 7, 2019)

GoldenX said:


> Kinda lame we don't have 4 core Zen2 options.
> Why do people insist on using a 32 core CPU for gaming? It's a goddamn workstation CPU, it's intended for that kind of work load only.



First of buying a quad-core for gaming now is not something I will recommend. Games are moving away from using 4 cores. Today it's 6 cores and better yet 12 threads that is the norm and besides that I also see more and more people complaining about stuttering with a quad-core in games as well. These days my recommendation for games are 6 core/12 threads like ryzen 5 3600.

I would never chose a quad-core cpu today for gaming unless I whas so dam poor I cut not afford anything better.


----------



## techguymaxc (Nov 7, 2019)

TheGuruStud said:


> You NEVER bought AMD before.



I've deleted the vitriol in your post and will respond to this statement.

My first AMD CPU was an AM5x86-P100, a Socket 7 CPU which was a drop-in upgrade for a 486.  Overclocked to 133MHz via dip switch.  Very cool chip.  Both figuratively, and literally, as these were in the days before heatsinks became necessary to cool desktop CPUs. 

I've also owned the following AMD CPUs, during what I consider to be their heyday:
Athlon XP 1700+, and 2800+
Athlon 64 3000+
Opteron 175

I've also owned AMD-powered laptops, and an Athlon II X3 460.

I bought and overclocked my first AMD CPU likely before you were even born. 

As for Radeon GPUs, I owned the very first model, and many thereafter, including numerous Crossfire systems (early adopter there as well, anyone remember Master and slave cards?) 

I buy the best hardware for my budget and use-case.


----------



## gamefoo21 (Nov 7, 2019)

Jeebus that R9 3950X is going to be a monster power pig if it's stock cooler is a 280mm AIO.

Consider that the Fury X stock as a rock, running Fur Mark hits 47'C loaded and it's running a single 120mm rad...

That card was crunching 250W...

Not that I mind, hopefully it drives the 3900X prices down.


----------



## Tomgang (Nov 7, 2019)

All these cores makes me confused

How about we go back to single core and no ht/smt


----------



## dicktracy (Nov 7, 2019)

rblc said:


> New gen HEDT CPU
> 
> Excellent 2nd gen Threadripper was for enthusiasts and scientists. Sorry AMD, but 3rd gen Threadripper is for scientists (workstations) only. Sad to say, but old/new 10980XE will be better choice for enthusiasts than new 3rd gen Threadripper (server CPU). And because difference between 3950 a 3960 is so BIG, 10980XE will be new HEDT entry point CPU soon.
> 
> Bye, bye Threadripper.


It's more targeted for Intel HEDT users than TR ones. $2000 for the 7980XE wasn't a problem for them and AMD knows it. Only people who loses from this isn't even Intel fanboys but the AMD side.


----------



## heflys20 (Nov 7, 2019)

champsilva said:


> 90% best case scenario, but the 10980XE 18c/36t costs less than half the price.



Well, the 3970x is 32c/64t, plus features PCI 4.0...


----------



## Deathy (Nov 7, 2019)

OctavianPrime said:


> From what I've read/seen, it's going to be specific X570 boards that have this many lanes available, unlikely that every X570 board will have/support them.


You really should state so and not just refer to a CPU (3950x) with 44 PCIe lanes, which is false. The AM4 Zen 2 CPUs have 24 PCIe 4.0 lanes of which, 4 are reserved for the chipset communication (I have not seen a non-chipset motherboard in the wild, although it should be possible in theory, the AMD CPUs are SoCs after all). And the X570 chipset has 20 4.0 lanes of which 4 are reserved for communication with the CPU. So you have a total of 36 PCIe 4.0 lanes that can be used for graphics cards, storage, controllers and other slots. That is the CPU plus X570 chipset and goes for every Zen 2 CPU, not just the 3950x. But that is also not the point here, since you can pair the 3950x with other motherboards, thus losing your stated PCIe lanes. It is much better to clearly state what you are talking about.


----------



## HwGeek (Nov 7, 2019)

Robert from AMD came to visit:


----------



## champsilva (Nov 7, 2019)

heflys20 said:


> Well, the 3970x is 32c/64t, plus features PCI 4.0...



Double the price, AVG 60% performance for 100% price increase. Not sure if it's a good deal

Well you can also add some features sets that Intel has and AMD doesnot.

Plus some optimized softwares.


----------



## techguymaxc (Nov 7, 2019)

champsilva said:


> Double the price, AVG 60% performance for 100% price increase. Not sure if it's a good deal
> 
> Well you can also add some features sets that Intel has and AMD doesnot.
> 
> Plus some optimized softwares.



I don't know that it's fair to say the 3970x will be 60% faster than the 9980xe/10980xe on average.  The average seems to be somewhere in the 40-50% range, with outliers at 36% and 90% in Cinebench, which is basically a cache benchmark at this point.

Don't get me wrong, 40-50% faster than Intel's flagship HEDT part (excluding the insane W-3175x) is nothing to sneeze at.  It's just not worth the cost for me at $2500-$3000 for a platform upgrade to get another 40-50% performance.


----------



## heflys20 (Nov 7, 2019)

champsilva said:


> Double the price, AVG 60% performance for 100% price increase. Not sure if it's a good deal


For people who have the budget and want top performance, it's probably worth it.


----------



## kapone32 (Nov 7, 2019)

heflys20 said:


> For people who have the budget and want top performance, it's probably worth it.



I would be interesting if game developers used the new TR4 to create games.


----------



## techguymaxc (Nov 7, 2019)

heflys20 said:


> For people who have the budget and want top performance, it's probably worth it.



That's a personal decision.  I would argue that many existing HEDT users will not take this upgrade path due to cost.  

For those that have yet to buy into an HEDT platform though, if the budget is there it's a no-brainer.  Though personally I'll be waiting to see what a theoretical 3990WX looks like before I decide to upgrade.


----------



## Nater (Nov 7, 2019)

techguymaxc said:


> I don't know that it's fair to say the 3970x will be 60% faster than the 9980xe/10980xe on average.  The average seems to be somewhere in the 40-50% range, with outliers at 36% and 90% in Cinebench, which is basically a cache benchmark at this point.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, 40-50% faster than Intel's flagship HEDT part (excluding the insane W-3175x) is nothing to sneeze at.  It's just not worth the cost for me at $2500-$3000 for a platform upgrade to get another 40-50% performance.



If you're using the system to make money, it's essentially monopoly money.  I took our secretary/accountant/HR gal from a dual core i3/4GB/HDD to a Ryzen 5 3600X/16GB/NVMe and she gets all her work done in about 2 hours, instead of being frustrated ALL day.


----------



## heflys20 (Nov 7, 2019)

techguymaxc said:


> That's a personal decision.  I would argue that many existing HEDT users will not take this upgrade path due to cost.



That's my point though, for those who can afford it and desire the performance; it's a non-factor.


----------



## techguymaxc (Nov 7, 2019)

Nater said:


> If you're using the system to make money, it's essentially monopoly money.  I took our secretary/accountant/HR gal from a dual core i3/4GB/HDD to a Ryzen 5 3600X/16GB/NVMe and she gets all her work done in about 2 hours, instead of being frustrated ALL day.



Time is money, though it doesn't matter nearly as much how long a task takes when you're dealing with salaried employees 



heflys20 said:


> That's my point though, for those who can afford it and desire the performance; it's a non-factor.



You're missing the nuance though.  I can afford it.  I desire the performance.  Just not enough to justify it.  Silly as it may sound, the value proposition just isn't there.  Again though, 64-cores might just do the trick...


----------



## Nater (Nov 7, 2019)

techguymaxc said:


> Time is money, though it doesn't matter nearly as much how long a task takes when you're dealing with salaried employees



Hey now!  Just cause I'm on TPU all day at work doesn't mean the boss shouldn't approve some new capital expenditures!  This i7 6700 is feeling mighty sluggish!  If I had something newer I'd have more time to screw off at work!


----------



## RH92 (Nov 7, 2019)

Deathy said:


> Shouldn't the $1400 price tag also be a scam then? 3700x times 3 is 24 cores for $990?



No not really because we are talking about two different families that offer different features  hence why i only compared 3970X to 3960X and used 3700X to illustrate the cost of 8 cores based on Zen 2.



Deathy said:


> I can get the 3000G for $50, 2C/4T, but I cannot get a 8C/16T CPU from AMD for $200. Where is your outrage there?



What you forget is that the $50 3000G  is based on Zen+ not Zen 2 , you can get Zen+  8C/16T  for as low as $170 ( R7 2700 )  so there is no reason for outrage there hence why you don't see any !



Deathy said:


> Either everything is a scam or people will spend the money on the CPU that best suits their need. It's not like there is false or deceptive advertising or they are forced to buy AMD at gun point. You really need to adjust your outrage meter to normal, non-internet levels.



My outrage meter is right where it should be pal , im calling out the fact that paying 600 dollars for 8 more cores between two products of the same family is nothing short of a  rip-off , i don't need to be forced to buy said product in order to call this out  .  Funnily enough everyone goes berserk when companies like Intel or Nvidia propose product with similar awful ''relative value'' ( to my knowledge nobody forced them to buy said products at gun point either )  but yet same peoples become indiferent to this topic when it's about AMD !  Therefore i would rather advise you to tone down your complacency meter to normal when it comes to AMD .


----------



## HTC (Nov 7, 2019)

TR prices are too high, IMO: around $1199 for 3960X and $1749 for 3970X would be much more appealing. Add to that, like with X570, prices for new TR boards are also too high: board makers are also trying to milk it.

The conjunction of this may actually drive prospective customers AWAY from TR 3000 series and go for either TR 2000 series or go Intel instead.


----------



## Durvelle27 (Nov 7, 2019)

Man that 3000G looks very interesting indeed. Not to mention the 3950X


----------



## thesmokingman (Nov 7, 2019)

HTC said:


> TR prices are too high, IMO: around $1199 for 3960X and $1749 for 3970X would be much more appealing. Add to that, like with X570, prices for new TR boards are also too high: board makers are also trying to milk it.
> 
> The conjunction of this may actually drive prospective customers AWAY from TR 3000 series and go for either TR 2000 series or go Intel instead.



Most ppl went HEDT just to go HEDT. For those people the 3950x/3900x should fit the bill. AMD has imo redefined what HEDT is starting at 24 cores. That's some serious high core counts! Previously, HEDT was basically not much of anything but high $ bling for epeen. HEDT now is serious workstation bizness. The pricing is inline with those who are making a living with HEDT in production/content.


----------



## R0H1T (Nov 7, 2019)

heflys20 said:


> That's my point though, for those who can afford it and desire the performance; it's a non-factor.


Curious thought process, I wonder if perf/W & arguably perf/$ comes into this? TR wins by a landslide in the former & at the latter as well, at least till the price drop on Intel HEDT goes worldwide!


----------



## thesmokingman (Nov 7, 2019)

R0H1T said:


> Curious thought process, I wonder if perf/W & arguably perf/$ comes into this? TR wins by a landslide in the former & at the latter as well, at least till the price drop on Intel HEDT goes worldwide!



Intel HEDT is competing with AMD's desktops man. They have their hands full as is with the 3900xc/3950x.


----------



## R0H1T (Nov 7, 2019)

That is true, however the desktop platform still lags in terms of connectivity (+storage) options & I guess ECC support? I know not everybody will need that, but for anyone not willing to start their workstation life at $1400 I'd say AMD has given Intel half a leg through the font door. Now the original TR & TR2 are still here, but for me this price is a bit on the higher side though I do expect it may come down depending on the sales.


----------



## Steevo (Nov 7, 2019)

Slizzo said:


> Are we also forgetting that you get 64 PCI-E lanes, 2 more memory channels, and a host of other features for those $600 extra dollars?




Not to mention the quality of the dies probably make them rare to hit those clocks with that low TDP.

Supply and demand. 

But he probably doesn't mind paying more per Watt, core, performance of Intel.


----------



## moproblems99 (Nov 7, 2019)

Oh AMD, enjoy the top.  Charge what those who came before you established as the market.  Revel in the complaints that your products are too expensive when the products of those before you would have been eagerly gobbled up because they were the best and the best costs money.

Now, get off your ass and give us a good GPU.


----------



## thesmokingman (Nov 7, 2019)

R0H1T said:


> That is true, however the desktop platform still lags in terms of connectivity (+storage) options & I guess ECC support? I know not everybody will need that, but for anyone not willing to start their workstation life at $1400 I'd say AMD has given Intel half a leg through the font door. Now the original TR & TR2 are still here, but for me this price is a bit on the higher side though I do expect it may come down depending on the sales.



I don't know about anybody else but it's pretty simple to me. If you're using RAID cards, you are sinking a lot of money into the equation so the choice is clear. Those who were epeening with HEDT, yea I can see those complaining on costs. But those guys need to get real with it. 

Half a leg? How do you mean? If those who are looking at multicore IPC, Intel has already lost the conversation.


----------



## heflys20 (Nov 7, 2019)

R0H1T said:


> Curious thought process, I wonder if perf/W & arguably perf/$ comes into this? TR wins by a landslide in the former & at the latter as well, at least till the price drop on Intel HEDT goes worldwide!


I guess I'm of the assumption that a number of people considering processors in this extreme price range (particularly with this level of performance) would consider those things slightly irrelevant; with top performance being the major draw. Regardless, as evidenced by responses, it seems that I am wrong. I assume Intel has already priced their upcoming HEDT' accordingly (compared to last generation), since it's possible that the 3950x might even give them some slight trouble. I expect their prices to rise over time (due to supply), actually. This goes for TR, too. All this is moot until official reviews though, IMHO.


----------



## Durvelle27 (Nov 7, 2019)

R0H1T said:


> That is true, however the desktop platform still lags in terms of connectivity (+storage) options & I guess ECC support? I know not everybody will need that, but for anyone not willing to start their workstation life at $1400 I'd say AMD has given Intel half a leg through the font door. Now the original TR & TR2 are still here, but for me this price is a bit on the higher side though I do expect it may come down depending on the sales.


Desktop Zen supports ECC depending on the board. I’ve used ECC RAM with no issues


----------



## thesmokingman (Nov 7, 2019)

Durvelle27 said:


> Desktop Zen supports ECC depending on the board. I’ve used ECC RAM with no issues



Oh yea, this. Forgot to mention this in my post above.


----------



## Mamya3084 (Nov 7, 2019)

Dammit, the new TR prices means I don't think we'll see cheap used 2950x CPUs for sale any time soon.


----------



## Vya Domus (Nov 7, 2019)

phanbuey said:


> It was only a matter of time before the sticker price was going to creep up.



Did it ? The 3960X is better than the previous flagship 2990WX and cheaper, so how exactly did the price creep up ? The 3970X is more expensive, sure, but it's also notably faster.

The performance/dollar still went up, it's extremely unrealistic to expect anything else. People have to realize that their AM4 platform is already competitive to Intel's current HEDT lineup, that's crazy and there is not much wiggle room for AMD to differentiate TR in terms of pricing.



GoldenX said:


> Kinda lame we don't have 4 core Zen2 options.



I hope they disappear, let us move into 2020 please. High core counts are the future. Let me put it this way, compared to say 10 years ago, a quad core occupies probably around an order of magnitude less die space, it's time to move on.


----------



## phanbuey (Nov 7, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> Did it ? The 3960X is better than the previous flagship 2990WX and cheaper, so how exactly did the price creep up ? The 3970X is more expensive, sure, but it's also notably faster.
> 
> The performance/dollar still went up, it's extremely unrealistic to expect anything else. People have to realize that their AM4 platform is already competitive to Intel's current HEDT lineup, that's crazy and there is not much wiggle room for AMD to differentiate TR in terms of pricing.
> 
> I hope they disappear, let us move into 2020 please. High core counts are the future. Let me put it this way, compared to say 10 years ago, a quad core occupies probably around an order of magnitude less die space, it's time to move on.



Yeah of course they did... every generation is going to be better than the one before it (unless you're intel for the past 6 years) - the 32C part from a year ago was $1800, the new part is $2k - that's price creep.  Is it a massive change? no not really; hence 'creep' next gen if it's out in front will be a bit more, and then a bit more etc.

you can make the $/performance argument somewhat, but this is just history repeating itself... AMD took the lead with K10 back in the day and then slowly increased prices until:





until a year  later intel came out with a $183 chip that would smash that $1k chip.

So yeah... I would stand by the price creep statement given how fast technology advances.  I think zen offered people sub-$200 eight core processors when just a little over two years ago you would have to spend $1k with intel shows that the pace of advancement hasn't slowed all that much, and neither has the pricing behavior of those with the fastest tech.


----------



## Cheeseball (Nov 7, 2019)

They should've aimed the 3960X at $1,099 (as an entry price into the HEDT platform) and the 3970X at $1,399. This would help those to swallow the combined CPU, memory and TRX40 motherboard overall cost.

I would reserve a potential "3990WX" 64-core part at $1,999 since this may be the top dog for HEDT.


----------



## bug (Nov 7, 2019)

Tsukiyomi91 said:


> I don't want the 3rd gen Threadripper. I want that R9 3950X!


Quite honestly, if you need that many cores, you probably also need to feed them, so why not go quad-channel?


----------



## GoldenX (Nov 7, 2019)

Tomgang said:


> First of buying a quad-core for gaming now is not something I will recommend. Games are moving away from using 4 cores. Today it's 6 cores and better yet 12 threads that is the norm and besides that I also see more and more people complaining about stuttering with a quad-core in games as well. These days my recommendation for games are 6 core/12 threads like ryzen 5 3600.
> 
> I would never chose a quad-core cpu today for gaming unless I whas so dam poor I cut not afford anything better.


Right, because the only use for a PC is gaming.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Nov 7, 2019)

phanbuey said:


> Yeah of course they did... every generation is going to be better than the one before it (unless you're intel for the past 6 years) - the 32C part from a year ago was $1800, the new part is $2k - that's price creep.  Is it a massive change? no not really; hence 'creep' next gen if it's out in front will be a bit more, and then a bit more etc.
> 
> you can make the $/performance argument somewhat, but this is just history repeating itself... AMD took the lead with K10 back in the day and then slowly increased prices until:
> View attachment 135888
> ...



No no no. this is all incorrect my friend. K10 was being clobbered by Core 2 duo/quad.

you must be thinking back as far as socket 754 and s939 Athlons (K8) and Opterons. Am2 was washed by Intel. (k10)

AM2+ Phenom quad core Agena suffered horribly by TLB errata. smashed by core 2 quads.

By the AM2 platform, Intel had already passed AMD with core 2 duo which was released at the end (if memory serves) of the Socket 939 era of chips like FX-55 and FX-57 ect. Opteron was the way to go on this platform though.

So I think AMD was beating out the Netburst processors. AMD had nothing with K10 on Intel ever.


----------



## bug (Nov 7, 2019)

GoldenX said:


> Right, because the only use for a PC is gaming.


The guy was specifically talking about building a gaming PC.
I've arguing against the need for many cores for years, but when $200 buys you 6 cores/12 threads, how much are you saving by sticking with a quad core? My new 3600 is now sitting on my desk, hoping it'll get a nice B550 mobo in time for Christmas


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Nov 7, 2019)

bug said:


> The guy was specifically talking about building a gaming PC.
> I've arguing against the need for many cores for years, but when $200 buys you 6 cores/12 threads, how much are you saving by sticking with a quad core? My new 3600 is now sitting on my desk, hoping it'll get a nice B550 mobo in time for Christmas



My kids "game" with a Ryzen 1400 on A320 chipset just fine. It's a quad core..... but has SMT for 8 threads.

What's wrong with gaming on a quad? You should be more specific and include that you mean only the badest newest titled games. I have well over 100 games (not to mention emulation) that can easily game on as little as a dual core.....


----------



## bug (Nov 7, 2019)

ShrimpBrime said:


> My kids "game" with a Ryzen 1400 on A320 chipset just fine. It's a quad core..... but has SMT for 8 threads.
> 
> What's wrong with gaming on a quad? You should be more specific and include that you mean only the badest newest titled games. I have well over 100 games (not to mention emulation) that can easily game on as little as a dual core.....


In my head, when a guy says "building a gaming PC today", they mean for today's games. Even then, you don't loose much by sticking to 4 cores, but yes, newer titles will push a little more frames with the help of a few more cores and when cores are so cheap... And then there are those that must game and record/stream doing so... because epeen.


----------



## Arct1c0n (Nov 7, 2019)

My 6 month only 9700k build suddenly feels very worthless now.  But all I do is game so I guess I'm ok....


----------



## bug (Nov 7, 2019)

Arct1c0n said:


> My 6 month only 9700k build suddenly feels very worthless now.  But all I do is game so I guess I'm ok....


Yeah, well, when faster CPU come out, that doesn't make existing CPUs slower. Your CPU was fine 6 months ago, it will be fine two years for now. Would you make the same purchase if you were buying today? Most likely not, but you still a very capable part on your hands. Enjoy it and stop worrying


----------



## GoldenX (Nov 7, 2019)

bug said:


> The guy was specifically talking about building a gaming PC.
> I've arguing against the need for many cores for years, but when $200 buys you 6 cores/12 threads, how much are you saving by sticking with a quad core? My new 3600 is now sitting on my desk, hoping it'll get a nice B550 mobo in time for Christmas


That's USA price.


----------



## bug (Nov 7, 2019)

GoldenX said:


> That's USA price.


It's also irrelevant. If CPUs are more expensive where you live (they are where I do), they tend to be proportionally so.


----------



## phanbuey (Nov 7, 2019)

ShrimpBrime said:


> No no no. this is all incorrect my friend. K10 was being clobbered by Core 2 duo/quad.
> 
> you must be thinking back as far as socket 754 and s939 Athlons (K8) and Opterons. Am2 was washed by Intel. (k10)
> 
> ...



You're right i was thinking K8, not K10.  

God, I'm old.


----------



## Flyordie (Nov 8, 2019)

I am more along the lines of agitated at AMD for not making them X399 compatible. At least the 32-core models and below. (or severely cut the pricing on the 2950X)

I am still running my 1900X and it does everything I need it to but.. I'd like to move to the 2nd or 3rd Gen for better memory support.


----------



## GoldenX (Nov 8, 2019)

bug said:


> It's also irrelevant. If CPUs are more expensive where you live (they are where I do), they tend to be proportionally so.


Heh, no. Hell no.


----------



## candle_86 (Nov 8, 2019)

Arpeegee said:


> With no competition from Intel they can set their prices where they want...
> 
> Over the last two years as the main competitors push their prices up AMD has been going with the flow to capitalizes on this (examples: Vega 64, RX 590, RX 5700 XT and most likely RX 5500). All those products should have launched $50-$100 less but because of lack of competition Nvidia and Intel got to determine the goal posts.
> 
> Now that AMD is on top with Threadripper, it gets to act as it's other competitors. Personally this is bad in my opinion and I forsee the enthusiast PC space getting smaller in the next few years as regular folks get priced out of the market, shrinking the high end gaming PC market, and causing developers to once again prioritize consoles and have bad PC ports.



Your joking right, let's rewind to 2004 the Golden age of PC gaming.

Athalon 64 started at 199 for the 2800, up to 1000 for the fx-55, gpu to get was the 299 x800 pro or 6800gt, 1gb of ram was 200, motherboard expect to pay 100 for basic and 200 for any features.

I saw plenty of folks rocking athlon 64 3200/3400/3500/3800 and 4000, matter of fact that a64 3200 was the most common at 500 bucks. Pentium 4 same deal,people saved and bought it. It wasn't I got paid let's build a compter. It was save up for 6 months then build.



ShrimpBrime said:


> No no no. this is all incorrect my friend. K10 was being clobbered by Core 2 duo/quad.
> 
> you must be thinking back as far as socket 754 and s939 Athlons (K8) and Opterons. Am2 was washed by Intel. (k10)
> 
> ...



Not quite am2 beat Intel by a few months, when the fx-62 came out it was declared the fastest processor. And phenom wasn't a total failure, just at the top end, but remember for the price of an e7300 you could get a phenom x3 8750, guess which one stayed useable longer.

Am2 had another advantage, my m2n-e will run a phenom II x4 980 just fine, launch Conroe boards had issues with 45nm chips. You needed a p35 to properly support them.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Nov 8, 2019)

candle_86 said:


> Your joking right, let's rewind to 2004 the Golden age of PC gaming.
> 
> Athalon 64 started at 199 for the 2800, up to 1000 for the fx-55, gpu to get was the 299 x800 pro or 6800gt, 1gb of ram was 200, motherboard expect to pay 100 for basic and 200 for any features.
> 
> ...



The Phenom II was AM3/+ with backwards ddr2 compatability.

AM2 Phenom was AM2/+ and where part numbers 9850BE and 9950BE. 

The DDR3 phenom II is a little bit later and youve got some time line mistakes there. No biggie.

FX-62 and FX-60 where just Athlons with a fancy name. 
The Athlon 6400+ actually was faster and had THE lowest memory latency and actually for many years.

But even still the FX-62 was short lived as you mentioned.



bug said:


> In my head, when a guy says "building a gaming PC today", they mean for today's games. Even then, you don't loose much by sticking to 4 cores, but yes, newer titles will push a little more frames with the help of a few more cores and when cores are so cheap... And then there are those that must game and record/stream doing so... because epeen.



Most epeen you need now is big Gpu. I think 8 cores would be a good standard for a higher end gaming rig and 6 with SMT at least.

But we just starting nit picking at a certain point. 
Think in general processors are plenty epeen nowadays.


----------



## candle_86 (Nov 8, 2019)

ShrimpBrime said:


> The Phenom II was AM3/+ with backwards ddr2 compatability.
> 
> AM2 Phenom was AM2/+ and where part numbers 9850BE and 9950BE.
> 
> ...



Nah I know the timeline would you like to know it?

Early 2006 and launched am2 (fx62, x2 5200)
Mid 2006 Intel launched Conroe
Late 2006 and launched x2 6000
Late 2006 ntel launched core 2 quad and the 6x50 series, amd responded with quad fx
Early 2007 x2 6400 hits market, ties core2 e6700 in most titles
Mid 2007 and launched phenom
Late 2007 Intel launched 45nm
Late 2007 and launched triple core cpu
Mid 2008 amd released fixed phenom
Late 2008 Intel launched core i7
Late 2008 Amd launched phenom ii

There you go.

Now as far as competition

Athlon x2 Kuma vs Pentium e6000
Phenom x3 vs core 2 e7000
Phenom x4 vs core 2 e8000 and q6000
Phenom ii vs q9000


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Nov 8, 2019)

@bug I would love to have the Threadripper but, a workstation grade CPUs is a little overkill for my needs. The Ryzen 9 fits the bill just nice IMO. Besides, 16 cores for $750 is a more worthy purchase than a $500+ chip with only 8 cores.


----------



## thesmokingman (Nov 8, 2019)

Tsukiyomi91 said:


> @bug I would love to have the Threadripper but, a workstation grade CPUs is a little overkill for my needs. The Ryzen 9 fits the bill just nice IMO. Besides, 12 cores for $750 is a more worthy purchase than a $500+ chip with only 8 cores.



That's 16 cores for 750.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Nov 8, 2019)

@thesmokingman lemme correct that. ==


----------



## Brusfantomet (Nov 8, 2019)

Arct1c0n said:


> My 6 month only 9700k build suddenly feels very worthless now.  But all I do is game so I guess I'm ok....



My 5820k probably is worthless, but I have no problems in the games I play so there is no immediate need for upgrade.

However, if I were to the 3950X is high on my list. When I got the 5820k 6 years ago, the thinking was that 4C/4T was all you would need. Well, the 6C/12T 5820k still works well at higher resolutions today. With the same thinking, a CPU with a high core count should be able to keep your GPU feed for some time to come.

If you look at Epyc prices then Treadripper pricing makes more sense:

Epyc 7504P:        32C/64T               2.5 Ghz base/ 3.25 Ghz Boost    $2300
Epyc 7402P:        24C/48T               2.8 Ghz base/3.35 Ghz Boost     $1250
(the P versions are for single socket servers)

TR 3970X:            32C/64T               3.7 Ghz base/ 4.5 Ghz Boost       $2000
TR 3960X:            24C/48T               3.8 Ghz base/ 4.5 Ghz Boost       $1400

Notice that the Treadripper base clocks are higher than the boost clocks on Epyc.


----------



## medi01 (Nov 8, 2019)

phanbuey said:


> until a year later intel came out with


Uh.
I recall that "Extreme Edition" thing, which was slower than Athlon, but cost $1k.
But feel free to live in "Intel, the price dropper" imagination of yours.


----------



## AceKingSuited (Nov 8, 2019)

Lol@ all these basement posters complaining about the price.  If you have to ask; then you aren't the target audience for these chips.  AMD is not a charity; it's company like every company on earth in the business of making money and they will have better margins on TRs than their other Ryzen chips.  These are their halo chips and will be priced accordingly.   I think these are great chips and while it's expensive, they are worth the price premium.

That's why they make a whole line up of chips from the 3600-3950X to the TRs.     I'll getting either the 3700X or 3800X and it's perfect for my use case.  You can get something that matches your budget and it's still great product.  It's like people complaining about the costs of a Ferrari when they can only afford a BMW.


----------



## bug (Nov 8, 2019)

medi01 said:


> Uh.
> I recall that "Extreme Edition" thing, which was slower than Athlon, but cost $1k.
> But feel free to live in "Intel, the price dropper" imagination of yours.


Athlon64 X2 4800+ launched at $1,001.  First batch of Core2Duo CPUs launched at prices up to $163. That is no imagination.


----------



## candle_86 (Nov 8, 2019)

bug said:


> Athlon64 X2 4800+ launched at $1,001.  First batch of Core2Duo CPUs launched at prices up to $163. That is no imagination.



The e6300 launched at 163, the same price the x2 3800 was at. 

The x6800 launched at 1000
So did the Pentium extreme 955 and 965

But facts seldom matter


----------



## phanbuey (Nov 8, 2019)

candle_86 said:


> The e6300 launched at 163, the same price the x2 3800 was at.
> 
> The x6800 launched at 1000
> So did the Pentium extreme 955 and 965
> ...



the x2 3800 was $358 in 2004 when it launched and the core 2 duo launched at $183 2 years later.  Not sure how that fact matters.



medi01 said:


> Uh.
> I recall that "Extreme Edition" thing, which was slower than Athlon, but cost $1k.
> But feel free to live in "Intel, the price dropper" imagination of yours.



I guess? that's not what I said nor what I think -- but keep fighting that good fight, you brave and noble AMD warrior.


----------



## yotano211 (Nov 8, 2019)

Brusfantomet said:


> My 5820k probably is worthless, but I have no problems in the games I play so there is no immediate need for upgrade.
> 
> However, if I were to the 3950X is high on my list. When I got the 5820k 6 years ago, the thinking was that 4C/4T was all you would need. Well, the 6C/12T 5820k still works well at higher resolutions today. With the same thinking, a CPU with a high core count should be able to keep your GPU feed for some time to come.
> 
> ...


The TR and Epyc are for different markets. You cant compare them both.

Why do all of these people complain about the price on these new processor. Just buy a processor within your needs and budget. If you complain about the price, then it might not be within your target audience.


----------



## candle_86 (Nov 8, 2019)

phanbuey said:


> the x2 3800 was $358 in 2004 when it launched and the core 2 duo launched at $183 2 years later.  Not sure how that fact matters.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess? that's not what I said nor what I think -- but keep fighting that good fight, you brave and noble AMD warrior.



Yes when launched the x2 3800 was targeted at the Pentium D 820 launch price is correct. Amd did a price drop ahead of core 2. But the e6300 wasn't the go to chip it was the 500 dollar e6600.

It's modern contrivance that CPUs should be under 300, it used to be 500-700 was more normal if building high performance. No one paired a 6800ultra or 7900gtx with an athlon 64 2800, they have spent more on the cpu. A budget system would have been a 6600gt or 7600gt with a mid tier cpu around 200 bucks


----------



## Tomgang (Nov 8, 2019)

For those that want to study the 24 core threadripper in CPU-z can have a little peak here.









						AMD Ryzen Threadripper @ 4100.51 MHz - CPU-Z VALIDATOR
					

[rnsg7f] Validated Dump by Duality92 (2019-11-06 20:45:48) - MB: Gigabyte TRX40 AORUS XTREME - RAM: 32768 MB




					valid.x86.fr


----------



## gmn 17 (Nov 9, 2019)

GPU = Gaming Processor Unit


----------



## candle_86 (Nov 9, 2019)

gmn 17 said:


> GPU = Gaming Processor Unit



No Graphics processing unit.


----------



## P4-630 (Nov 9, 2019)

MSI hints at 64-core/128-thread threadripper














						MSI-afbeelding hint op Threadripper-chip met 64 cores en 128 threads
					

De aankondiging van de derde generatie Threadripper-processors lag al een tijdje in het verschiet, maar inmiddels heeft AMD twee van de chips aangekondi...




					nl.hardware.info


----------



## champsilva (Nov 10, 2019)

P4-630 said:


> MSI hints at 64-core/128-thread threadripper
> 
> View attachment 136023
> 
> ...



Maybe $3200?


----------



## Camm (Nov 11, 2019)

$1500 i would have bought a 3970x, but 2000 is a deal breaker for me. Umming and aaring about the CCC penalty on the 3960x or just dropping down to a 3950x. Honestly, a 3950x for the tr platform would be pretty ideal though.


----------



## bug (Nov 11, 2019)

champsilva said:


> Maybe $3200?





Camm said:


> $1500 i would have bought a 3970x, but 2000 is a deal breaker for me. Umming and aaring about the CCC penalty on the 3960x or just dropping down to a 3950x. Honestly, a 3950x for the tr platform would be pretty ideal though.


I'd argue if you really need a Threadripper, you'll be making back the asking $$$ within a month or two. Otherwise, you're just using it wrong


----------



## Camm (Nov 11, 2019)

bug said:


> I'd argue if you really need a Threadripper, you'll be making back the asking $$$ within a month or two. Otherwise, you're just using it wrong



Home lab, mostly running SCCM. I can use the cores, but tax can only offset so much, and it still needs to pull double duties as my daily driver.


----------



## bug (Nov 12, 2019)

Camm said:


> Home lab, mostly running SCCM. I can use the cores, but tax can only offset so much, and it still needs to pull double duties as my daily driver.


"I can use the cores" != "I need the cores"
Everybody's commute would take a little less if we each had a Ferrari. That doesn't need we all need a Ferrari


----------



## Camm (Nov 12, 2019)

bug said:


> "I can use the cores" != "I need the cores"
> Everybody's commute would take a little less if we each had a Ferrari. That doesn't need we all need a Ferrari



If everyone could afford a Ferrari and speed limits were unlimited, people would use the Ferrarri and take the time benefit from it.

But your core analogy is a bit false, more aptly, time=money, and the time I could save with being able to dedicated more cores into my home lab isn't equivalent to the cost of the part.


----------



## pantherx12 (Nov 13, 2019)

Pretty surprised at people complaining about price of high end parts.

It's literally cutting edge tech, those thread ripper CPUs take stock out the server side which is more profitable, they are not a high volume sale. Hence high prices.

AMD has made sure the mainstream parts are affordable and competitive. The ultra high end of the market has always been crazy.

That's why back when I used to be a regular here I'd buy midrange parts and overclock the hell out of them. The only top end models I've owned are hd4890 because I bought it on here and a 4790k because it was in a laptop and that was awesome.


----------



## bug (Nov 13, 2019)

pantherx12 said:


> Pretty surprised at people complaining about price of high end parts.
> 
> It's literally cutting edge tech, those thread ripper CPUs take stock out the server side which is more profitable, they are not a high volume sale. Hence high prices.
> 
> ...


Yes, no matter whether we're talking CPUs, GPUs, displays or something else, there is always the mandatory share of posts complaining about "rip-off" because price doesn't scale linearly with performance. Nothing anyone can do about it.


----------



## champsilva (Nov 13, 2019)

bug said:


> I'd argue if you really need a Threadripper, you'll be making back the asking $$$ within a month or two. Otherwise, you're just using it wrong



Actually if you're rly doin money you buy epyc/xeon 

Specially for longevity. 256/512GB RAM, dual socket and  so on.


----------



## kapone32 (Nov 13, 2019)

Though I would love to have one of these (if for no other reason that because I can) the cost of the combination of board and CPU will be most likely $2000-$3000 Canadian. If you are already on TR4 it can be difficult to think of buying a new board vs the $300-$500 you already spent on X399. The major benefits of TR40 are just like X570. WIFI 6 and PCI-E 4.0. The funny thing is WIFI 6 can be had for $50 Canadian and you could get an expansion (some X399 already came with one) card to get faster than PCI_E 4.0 speeds on RAID 0.


----------



## rickderick7 (Nov 21, 2019)

I bought *AMD Ryzen 9 3950X last week*, and set it up on my CPU , but since then my printer stopped working. Is that something related to this device? I even tried setting up the printer again with the below steps in the link, but still no luck. I need my printer working as before.
<a href=" https://123hp-com-setup.us/123hp-oj5255-wireless-setup/">123.hp.com/oj5255</a>
Could someone advice on this?
Thanks
 Rick


----------



## bug (Nov 21, 2019)

rickderick7 said:


> I bought *AMD Ryzen 9 3950X last week*, and set it up on my CPU , but since then my printer stopped working. Is that something related to this device? I even tried setting up the printer again with the below steps in the link, but still no luck. I need my printer working as before.
> <a href=" https://123hp-com-setup.us/123hp-oj5255-wireless-setup/">123.hp.com/oj5255</a>
> Could someone advice on this?
> Thanks
> Rick


You really should start a new thread in the proper forums, you're more likely to get help that way.
But no, changing the CPU will not cause the printer to stop working. If you decide to start a new thread, add details like: did you change the motherboard as well, does the new motherboard support wifi, did you (re)install the wifi drivers...

And welcome to TPU, but as a hint, refrain from including links in your posts until you get like a hundred posts or so under your belt. I know you meant well, but newcomers posting links are frowned upon (thank spammers for that).


----------

