Discussion in 'AMD x86 CPUs and chipsets' started by luke o, Dec 27, 2018.
Why would you bother
CPU companies must love you guys lol!
Because I love new shit and because hobbies.
Well, 9900KS probably doesn't fit the new shit criteria , it's just a tighter binned 9900k
Wow that's a great chip! Lucky you.
Impressed if ddr-4666 is possible, whether it makes a significant impact would be interesting.
I'm pretty sure I like tinkering more than I like playing games.
I haven't had a 9th gen Intel part so it will be new... and it will be shit.
Just put Azzan on ignore like the rest of us and all of a sudden, shitposting is reduced.
I only have 1 pc lol haha wasted so much money on computers when i was younger.. not no more.
It's a pain in the ass to change motherboards and reinstall Windows etc, a drop in CPU replacement is easy that's what's great about the AM4 platform even back to the old AM2/+/3 lots of forward compatibility built in.
So when guys have 9700/9900Ks and would change over to Ryzen 3000 a fraction more performance im like WTF!
I'll need 2 PC's until the little one is old enough to get out of our bedroom where the main rig lives. But even then I like having a reasonably powerful HTPC and that I can take with me to a work lan on the few occasions they've had one.
Don't get me wrong I wanted to retire the server at some point. Originally I wanted to get a prebuilt NAS, but I've never been able to rationalise a device that costs more than using hardware I already own, restricts the size of the drives I can use and from the approx 10 I've helped people try recover failed arrays on, just seem unreliable particularly, the synology 4x drive units.
Now I do have a gaming laptop, which was a mistake based on hours gamed vs cost. I very rarely use it for its intended purpose and only really gets used when I'm tinkering with one of my other PC's or we go away on a trip and I want some entertainment after the missus and bub have gone to sleep.
Hmm interesting, so according to wcftech:
1. Ryzen 9 3900X(4.6GHz) @ 4.4GHz = ~2150-2170 Cinebench
i.e. stock 3900X shouldn't have problem beating stock 9900K in Cinebench
2. Ryzen 9 3900X can o/c to ~4.8GHz
Not bad, IF its true.
Yes, This was clearly shown in the keynote 4 days ago..
Actually, even the 3800X was faster
Please don't believe this again - and then create another disappointment thread.
That score doesn't sound right. it has to be more than 3000.
umm, I'm not.. that's why I said:
Anyway I'm just curious to see how 3900X's gonna actually perform, because I think it'll run slower(overall performance) and hotter than 9900K.
So given that you "think it'll run slower(overall performance) and hotter than 9900K", you won't be disappointed if you are right and we won't see another whiney thread about it?
Umm I thought stock 9900K gets ~2150-2170 on Cinebench? that's why I said
Using the latest C4D we already have the performance difference between CPUs, from anandtech
Technically not stock for that score. If you follow the intel spec of 95w TDP a 9900k gets 1763 for Cinebench (techspot testing), To get to 2050 or 2150 etc scores requires MCE to be enabled so it's running 4.7ghz all core turbo all the time which really is overclocking (just 'happens' to be on by default on a lot of motherboards). This results in the CPU power draw blowing out to around 170w.
If there's any truth to this then the results are for the 3800X and not the 12 core. The 2920X scores around 2550 in cb, slap on 10-15% IPC and slightly higher clocks and the 3900X should sit around 3000.
Edit: updated 2920x values, had the 1920x's numbers.