Maybe so but I can't really see the appeal of it unless you need to use all 12 cores with the lowest power consumption possible.
-
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 ***
- Thread starter Jamin280672
- Start date
Its a 3900x for a lot cheaper
Caporegime
I am very impressed with my upgrade.
Just played GTA5 for an hour, when I last played it I had an overclocked 2700k, GTX980 and an old Korean 1440p IPS monitor.
Playing it now, with a 3600 + 5700 + 32" 1440p 144hz monitor and it looks and runs amazing, it was pretty stuttery when I tried with the 2700k + 5700.
Just played GTA5 for an hour, when I last played it I had an overclocked 2700k, GTX980 and an old Korean 1440p IPS monitor.
Playing it now, with a 3600 + 5700 + 32" 1440p 144hz monitor and it looks and runs amazing, it was pretty stuttery when I tried with the 2700k + 5700.
Yes but my point is that unless you really need 12 cores it's just a CPU that is lower clocked than the 3600x / 3800x and probably performs worse in games. Just having 12 cores for a lower price doesn't make it practical.
Soldato
10 months later Asus finally post a new bios for my old x370 board.
Soldato
My 3900x was the best performer for gaming second only to my 3950x I had, where I could clock one ccx at 4.6ghz permanently. I now have a 3700x and it's not anywhere near as good in games
Really... your 3700x isn't anywhere near as good as your 3900x? Are you standing by that statement, despite there being a wealth of independent benchmarks and reviews on the internet since many months now that show ithe 3700x performs very similarly to the 3900x in gaming, usually within 10%? https://www.hardwarezone.com.sg/fea...erformance-specs-features/gaming-benchmarks-5
The only area where the 3900x significantly beats a 3700x, or where a 3700x could be described as being significantly behind, is in non-gaming applications where the additional cores are put to full use.
Soldato
I have had all three, and im not going to defend it. I lived it. They are going by the single core boost. But sadly no games use just 1 core anymore so it's a moot point. Hence the clocking of one ccx to almost the boost ghz giving better gaming performance
Or an all core oc being better for a game like call of duty for example
I can say the moon is made of marshmallow, but that doesn't make it true. The multitude of benchmarks out there on tens of review sites, tested under consistent conditions and showing that the gaming performance between the 3700x and 3900x is marginal, speak for themselves and provide empirical scientific evidence that what you say is not true. https://youtu.be/RHw67eaT32U?t=377
I respect your right to an opinion, but please do not present it as anything other than a wholly subjective opinion, based on no tangible evidence, and that runs contrary to public information. Otherwise, please provide links and evidence supporting your statement that "a 3700x isn't anywhere near as good as a 3900x in gaming" and I will be happy to eat my proverbial hat.
Last edited:
Soldato
I can send you my 3dmark scores, I can send you my friends 3900x scores against his 10900k at 5.4ghz all cores that it beats. My 3700x does not and its about 15% slower in games because I can only get 4.3 all core,
Also I have spent the last x amount of time (I think a year). since the 3900x was released, tweaking and fiddling to this day. Changing cpu along the way. They are probably not wrong in their amount of time they put in. But I've put in far far far far more time.
1st is HT off 5.4ghz , 3rd is Ht on 5ghz this is all i can get hold of right now as not at my pc
Last edited:
Caporegime
Last BIOS update was a bit of a funny one with my X570 Asus ROG board, it killed my SSD...........
So to be clear, you are referring specifically to maximum overclocked performance? That was not clear from your initial posts.
Soldato
Well if they are both at stock it's the same no? As both overclocked to the max
No, it's not the same. The performance between them at stock in gaming is not earth-shattering, as shown by 1000 reviews and game engine benchmarks.
Just put together office pc for my missus:
Ryzen 5 3600
MSI b450 pro-m2 mATX max
Corsair 32 GB 3000 MHz
Crucial p2 500 GB nvme
Noticed it was boosting (before applying all drivers,updates) to 4275 MHz on all auto (xmp on).
This computer feels so quick for an office pc
Ryzen 5 3600
MSI b450 pro-m2 mATX max
Corsair 32 GB 3000 MHz
Crucial p2 500 GB nvme
Noticed it was boosting (before applying all drivers,updates) to 4275 MHz on all auto (xmp on).
This computer feels so quick for an office pc
Killed how?
Caporegime
Well, it goosed the bootloader.
As it turns out, it's detected in Windows weirdly enough, despite BIOS not seeing it.
Soldato
Who runs it at stock... Pointless, they are all taking nonsense compared to real world users
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Aug 2015
- Posts
- 283
Other way around, pointless overclocking Ryzen. If overclocking is your thing go Intel IMO.