• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

AMD Zen 2 (Ryzen 3000) - *** NO COMPETITOR HINTING ***

Soldato
Joined
18 May 2010
Posts
22,302
Location
London
Thing is I made I made a mistake when the 1700/1700x and 1800x launched. The product I should have bought was the 1700x not the cheaper 1700. Everyone said you can overclock it to 4Ghz and have identical performance. Well I ended up with a 1700 that was a rubbish overclocker. It couldn't even do 3.8Ghz at 1.35v and I never managed to get my ram stable at DOCP. I then ended up selling it and buying a 2700x to solve the frequency issue and ram issue. I also bought a new pair of ram sticks (Samsung B-die) just to make sure. Up until last week I still was not able to get stable at DOCP and had to drop to 3133MHz for stability. A new BIOS was released last week and thus far everything seems OK at DOCP. But it always goes like this and eventually freezes. Time will tell.

All I'm saying, is that if it was ME I would buy the 3800x.
 
Soldato
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Posts
22,598
Agreed, though I don't see any other way that they could be different except for binning.

It is market segmentation; the enthusiast gets some value with the cheaper variant, whilst the regular consumer gets the better out of the box experience, but at a higher price point.
I agree partially- but these aren't consumer parts really.

they are High End Desktop parts, consumers will be going for the 3's and possibly 5 models (most likely in pre-built systems).

I wouldn't be surprised if the 3800x was just a binned 3700x at all
 
Soldato
Joined
4 Jul 2012
Posts
16,911
Seems to struggle a bit compared to the Intel architecture from a few years ago though. I reckon you'll get 100mhz more from the 3800X, maybe 4.3 all core boost for 5 mins.
It's matching in IPC, it has lower clocks, consumes less power, has more cores and is quite a bit cheaper per core.

I really don't see what there is to complain about.
 
Associate
Joined
16 Jan 2010
Posts
1,415
Location
Earth
The results where the 9900k is 20 or more fps ahead really are pointless though as both chips are doing silly fps anyway.
Thats the thing, if your 1440p or 4k gaming then all the chips are similar so why wouldnt you just go for the one thats the newest and has the better platform?
Some of the 3700X 4K numbers are around 45-70fps with a single 2080ti. If you want a CPU that can carry you through 2 or 3 successive GPU upgrades then you want something that can feed the equivalent to 2080ti SLI. No idea if it can but being behind now doesn't auger well for the future.
 
Soldato
Joined
7 Aug 2009
Posts
4,900
Location
London
The results where the 9900k is 20 or more fps ahead really are pointless though as both chips are doing silly fps anyway.
Thats the thing, if your 1440p or 4k gaming then all the chips are similar so why wouldnt you just go for the one thats the newest and has the better platform?

Mainly because I game at 1080p 240hz. Are there any huge differences between a z390 board and a b450?
 
Soldato
Joined
13 Mar 2008
Posts
9,638
Location
Ireland
Some of the 4K numbers are around 45-70fps. So if you want a CPU that can carry you through 2 or 3 successive GPU upgrades then you want something that can feed the equivalent to 2080ti
SLI. No idea if it can but being behind now doesn't auger well for the future.

Same thing was said for 1600 vs 7600K two years ago. Games changed, their engines changed, and Ryzen was utilised more.

Linus noticed that in BattleField, you can get better performance prioritising cores again, which means there's still untapped performance with how games, and scheduler distributes load in some applications.
 
Soldato
Joined
28 May 2007
Posts
18,200
A bottomless pit of processing power that can't quite match a CPU with 66% of the cores max overclock in games. Yes it makes sense if you're a content creator/video editor but not for now if you have a PC primarily for gaming.

Gaming performance is within the margin of error.
 
Caporegime
Joined
8 Jul 2003
Posts
30,062
Location
In a house
You're guys are doing the self-justification thing wrong.

You look at the 3900X and see it's too expensive.
You look at the 3600X and then consider the 3700X because it's not much of a jump for the gain
Having settled on the 3700X the 3800X appears to be in reach and you mull over it
Feeling cheeky you settle on the 3800X and come to terms with that
Having come to terms with the 3800X the gap between it and the 3900X is smaller than the 3600X
You've completely forgotten you were ever considering the 3600X at this stage
You buy a 3900X

:D

Sounds about right :D
 
Back
Top Bottom