I know it’s a difficult question to answer, but how long would you guess the 3900X will last before bottlenecking top end GPU’s?
-
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.
Ryzen 3900X thread
- Thread starter robfosters
- Start date
Associate
I'd say about 6 years if gaming at 4k but that's only a guess.
As you say, it’s hard to answer, but I’d want 3-4 years. Hopefully with next gen consoles using AMD 8 core CPU’s we’ll get at least the life span of those consoles so 5-6 years. But a lot will depend on the future landscape of computing, I think we’re at the start of a shift in processor tech. We will still see gains in IPC terms but I think we will see an increase in core count and later perhaps differences in cores, so some cores will be optimised for certain tasks such as AI whilst others will be used for general computing.
Good morning
I want to buy this case:
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/koli...tempered-glass-window-ca-037-kk.html#comments
and I'm not sure if it's compatible with my mainboard:
Aspire GX-281
chipset:amd ryzen soc
southbridge: B350
Can you help please?
I want to buy this case:
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/koli...tempered-glass-window-ca-037-kk.html#comments
and I'm not sure if it's compatible with my mainboard:
Aspire GX-281
chipset:amd ryzen soc
southbridge: B350
Can you help please?
I might look into trying to get an all-core overclock, did you use Ryzen Master for that?
I think mine's just set to PBO at present.
It depends on when the 12-core CPUs will become mainstream and the game engines begin exploiting their 24 threads to the fullest extent.
There are about 1.3 billion active PC gamers worldwide. https://www.statista.com/statistics/748072/number-pc-gamers-world-platform/
If the big retailers sell approximately 1000 12-core Ryzen 9 3900X each month, that means that since July each could have sold approximately 5000 SKUs of this type. https://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Mindfactory-Sept.png
The Ryzen 9 3900X is only popular amongst gamers in the rich countries like the UK, Germany, the U.S, maybe the Russian Federation and some western parts of the EU.
If globally, Ryzen 9 3900X has been sold in less than 100,000 units since its unveil, then it equals around 0.0000769 parts of the 1.3 billion PC gamers.
Soldato
You're probably right in terms of numbers, but of those 1.3billion I would bet my hat that less than 1% are on a current gen processor at all, probably not even 0.1%. Small numbers for the 3900X may be, but going by Valve's hardware survey 4 cores still reigns and yet games with more than 4 core support are coming.
Last edited:
Latest games utilise 6 cores and more.
Rainbow Six: CPU load - lower is better - Ryzen 5 3600 (12-thread) vs Ryzen 5 3600X (12-thread) vs Core i5-9600K (6-thread):
Rainbow Six: CPU load - lower is better - Ryzen 9 3900X (24-thread) vs Core i9-9900K (16-thread):
As you can see, there is not much headroom left in the 6-core proposals, while the 8-core and 12-core proposals breathe more freely.
Rainbow Six: CPU load - lower is better - Ryzen 5 3600 (12-thread) vs Ryzen 5 3600X (12-thread) vs Core i5-9600K (6-thread):
Rainbow Six: CPU load - lower is better - Ryzen 9 3900X (24-thread) vs Core i9-9900K (16-thread):
As you can see, there is not much headroom left in the 6-core proposals, while the 8-core and 12-core proposals breathe more freely.
You keep saying this like it applies to everyone. This only applies to those who game on potato resolutions or people who need very high fps. Case in point I game at 4K and my 3600 is hardly used at all.Latest games utilise 6 cores and more.
Rainbow Six: CPU load - lower is better - Ryzen 5 3600 (12-thread) vs Ryzen 5 3600X (12-thread) vs Core i5-9600K (6-thread):
Rainbow Six: CPU load - lower is better - Ryzen 9 3900X (24-thread) vs Core i9-9900K (16-thread):
As you can see, there is not much headroom left in the 6-core proposals, while the 8-core and 12-core proposals breathe more freely.
Basically what you need to understand is you need to be on low resolutions or have a very beefy GPU to be CPU limited. Most people are GPU limited, so what you are saying applies to a small percentage of people. But people reading your posts would think it applies to everyone. Fake news! Lol.
Soldato
Don't bother trying. I have told him before along with others that at 1440p+ there is minimal difference, they just ignore it and wade into the next debate with the same nonsense argument.
Yeah. It's like he is going out of his way and wants everyone to ignore him with all these nonsense posts.
I have given him many chances but I think I will just skip past his posts now. Too many errors. For every right piece of information he posts, he posts 2 or more wrong ones.
Soldato
Being wrong doesn't bother me, people have to learn somewhere but he just refuses to learn and actively ignores people telling him anything contrary to his beliefs.
Oh well on a bright note I do love my 3900X, it has bedded in for a week now so I will se what I can push it to over the next week.
Soldato
Really is luck of the draw with these CPUs I think. Quite happy to get over 4.4 at a sensible voltage.
PBO was a waste of time for me, all core at best was about 4.1GHz. Single core barely hitting 4.6. I think with PBO Cb-R20 scored around 7200, where as 4.4 OC I get 7800 CB.
I think I need to watch a video guide on getting the most out it as I don't understand quite a lot of what you wrote.
I don't know if you are stupid or I push hard against your interests, so you need to desperately shift the truth.
At 4K, the CPU is also as important - you have 0.1% lows and 1% lows which are the most stable on CPUs with more cores, and also your game needs more cores in order to push this 4K gameplay faster.
I can tell you that my Ryzen 5 2500U chokes hard at 4K in CS: Source, there is a period when I change from 1080p to 2160p and there is very strong lag/stutter for several minutes.
That it due to the CPU being slow and not capable to change fast enough the resolution when the level map is already loaded.
Soldato
Soldato
So your comparison is an intentionally low clocked, low power and poorly cooled mobile cpu to show that they can make a difference at 4k? And you wonder why no-one takes you seriously?
In a game that runs into the hundreds of fps no less.
The Ryzen 5 2500U is perfectly cooled, it is cool and quiet..
It is not "intentionally" low clocked :laugh:
Here is another comparison to prove that you are wrong:
https://forums.tomshardware.com/threads/cpu-for-4k-gaming.3378335/
At 1080p, my CS: Source runs perfectly fine around 150-200 FPS maxed out. What's the problem to run it at higher resolution with lower frame rate? Explain!
Soldato
^ He gives absolutely no example of what games give those sort of results, but you keep going that way.
And yes, mobile chips always run slower than desktop chips. That's pretty common knowledge.
There's no point in discussing further though, you have made you mind up so I won't waste anyone's time any more. Have a good one mate!
And yes, mobile chips always run slower than desktop chips. That's pretty common knowledge.
There's no point in discussing further though, you have made you mind up so I won't waste anyone's time any more. Have a good one mate!
True. I get things wrong also at times, but I am happy to be corrected, that is how we learn and grow.
+1