Discussion in 'CPUs' started by The Old School Gamer, Dec 8, 2019.
Would it have not been better to get a 3900x at the start and save all the faff?
Nah it's all a bit of fun.
I am an PC enthusiast after all.
Tinkering and messing around is my thing.
^^ AMD made a phone call I reckon.
I have actually spotted a new 3500X listing for £135 + £20 P&P.
But for that price l would definitely lean towards buying the 3600 from OCUK instead.
My 3900 has been dispatched, it should be in my hands by the weekend.
It will be interesting to see how well the 3900 boosts via PBO compared to my 3900X.
If the Tom's Hardware (US) review is anything to go by it should only be marginally slower in real performance terms.
I am quite surprised there generally isn't more reviews (and interest) for the 3900 non-X out there.
12 core / 24 thread CPU with a 65W TDP... that is just tech sexy to me lol.
Still a few places showing the 3500X in stock. One is way overpriced and an other is in single digits. The Ryzen 1600 AF looks the better chip with the run on the 3500X.
I'll install it into the X570 TUF later on tonight and do some benchmarks.
Any benchmark requests? let me know.
people have run the 3900 none x on hwbot on ln2 and it was almost as fast as the top 3900x.
Here ya go...
In my case the 3900 is performing better than my 3900X with PBO enabled.
But there are other factors to consider.
The 3900 is running on a newer X570 chipset vs the 3900X which is running on a older X370 chipset.
Spoiler: CPU-Z Info & Bench
Spoiler: CoreTemp Idle & Load
Spoiler: AIDA64 Cache & Memory Bench
Spoiler: 3DMark Time Spy & Fire Strike
Spoiler: Cinebench R20
What is the batch code?
ALL core boosting via PBO is maintaining a higher clock speed on the 3900 vs the 3900X.
The 3900X still clocks higher on a single core boost as the 3900 tops out around 4.35Ghz vs 4.65Ghz.
This does kind of explain why I'm getting better benchmark scores out of the 3900, it is technically clocking higher on a multi-core load.
*This is not a true apples-to-apples comparison though as the CPUs are running on different motherboards.
But the 3900X is water cooled so it's not being thermally constrained.
Is that under highend water?
see my sig.
The 3900X is being water cooled.
The 3900 is being air cooled by a Be Quiet Dark Rock.
Can't explain it really, could be that X570 mobo is more optimised.
Strange. I think you dropped lucky on the 3900 and unlucky on the 3900X.
Yeah could well be.
Anyone getting above 4.2Ghz all core boost out of their 3900X on PBO?
Wont it boost higher due to no threads?
Going by this graph by fpsreview, 4.3Ghz (give or take) is about where 3900X owners should be maxed out on PBO.
So my 3900X is 100mhz down (give or take), but my 3900 is right where it should be.
At launch my 3900X was unstable with the old BIOS version(s).
So it could be it's been slightly degraded or as jigger said I'm just a bit unlucky on the quality of the chip.
3900 cpu? Is that new? I know about the 3900x but not the 3900
The 3900 is only available on the OEM supply channel for approved system integrator's.
They are not meant to be on retail sale anywhere as a stand alone product.
AMD call it the 3900 'Pro' on their site but as far as I can tell it's the same CPU/spec.
Looking at your image I don't think this 3900 is a pro. I've used a couple of Pro chips and it was marked on ISH as Ryzen 7 Pro 2700X
My point was it's the exact same technical spec.
So for all intense purposes it is the same chip besides what they are officially calling it and printing on the CPU.
Separate names with a comma.