- Joined
- Mar 3, 2008
- Messages
- 2,179 (0.36/day)
System Name | ...no name yet |
---|---|
Processor | AMD Ryzen 7800x3D |
Motherboard | ASUS STRIX X670E-E Wi-Fi |
Cooling | EK Nucleus AIO CR360 Lux-D-RGB |
Memory | G.Skill Ripjaws DDR5 6000Mhz CL36 32GB (2x16) |
Video Card(s) | MSI 4090 Gaming Trio |
Storage | 1Tb Samsung 860 SSD, twin 2TB Samsung nvme drives |
Display(s) | Asus ROG Swift PG279Q IPS gsync 2k |
Case | Thermaltake P5 wall mounted and backlit with Corsair lighting node pro |
Power Supply | EVGA P3 1000w |
Mouse | Logitech G9x (awesome!) |
Keyboard | Logitech G105 |
VR HMD | Pimax 5k+ |
Software | Windows 10 64Bit |
Benchmark Scores | CPU-Z 698s/7465m (7800x3D result) |
I think people are largely thinking of software that can't take advantage of all cores, so that clock rate matters more for many things, especially games. It will probably be a few years before ubiquitous multi-core software support erases sub-quad core CPUs from the market, and until that time, there will continue to be demand for high-clocking dual and triple cores over lower clocked 4, 6, and 8 core CPUs.
I do wonder what, if any optimizations might come between the current models and this.
I totally understand where those people are coming from, but why are those people even contemplating looking at something they know they'll never use anyway.
If I were those people I'd be looking into the X2's, X3's, i3's, or i5 duals and leave this other stuff to the people that are actually gonna use it. I see absolutely no reason for 90% of the users here to worry about/"upgrade" to the X6's when they come out. Sure it's great for marketshare so by all means go for it, but not if you're gonna complain that it's not slaughtering or making your 4Ghz dual or tri obselete lol. :shadedshu
Kei