News: AMD 3950X, Athlon 3000G, & Threadripper 3970X, 3960X Release, Specs, & Price
video description
Date: 2020-05-06
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 10
David
Is it just me, or have the 3 tech companies AMD, Intel and Nvidia seem have drawn a line in the sand regarding price to performance of their parts? Let me explain: In the CPU space both AMD and Intel have set their base models at quad core, both offer similar performance and cost about the same(ish. Previously when a new product line was launched you would get increases in performance for the same price as the previous generation sold for. Now they seem to have a baseline, and if you want more cores or higher clocks you have to pay through the nose for it. Their base models in their new ranges only basically match the previous generations, and if you want more performance you have to pay more. For reference I have observed the cost of i5 CPU's nearly double over a 6 year period, with the increase being 6 cores instead of 4(forced by Ryzen core counts. AMD broke that mould by offering more cores than Intel when Intel was gouging their customers for quad core i7's, but that seems to be over now. I bring this up in light of the expected MSRP of the new Threadripper lines, going for way more than the 2nd generation parts did - offering more cores, but costing way more, and the upcoming 3950X AM4 part has been slotted in where the 2950X was positioned last gen. It's like AMD has said we will be charging 50 per core, so more cores means much higher prices If they follow this logic through with the expected 64 core Threadripper it will cost well over 3000, a price that would even make Intel blush! I am seeing the same thing with the GPU side as well, where they give you a crap base model that sometimes gets beaten by last gen parts, and they then charge you per CUDA core for any increase to performance. This has the effect of making the mid range price bracket jump from 250 to 400, and the high end costs well over 1000, where it once cost around 800- 1000 max for the top range GPU. I am a budget builder, and I am seeing the cost of the parts I would use to put a build together go through the roof, for little to no performance gain over the last generation parts. I surf the used part markets now for good value(bit of a minefield though, as new parts no longer offer decent price to performance uplifts, like there used to be.
reply
Is it just me, or have the 3 tech companies AMD, Intel and Nvidia seem have drawn a line in the sand regarding price to performance of their parts? Let me explain: In the CPU space both AMD and Intel have set their base models at quad core, both offer similar performance and cost about the same(ish. Previously when a new product line was launched you would get increases in performance for the same price as the previous generation sold for. Now they seem to have a baseline, and if you want more cores or higher clocks you have to pay through the nose for it. Their base models in their new ranges only basically match the previous generations, and if you want more performance you have to pay more. For reference I have observed the cost of i5 CPU's nearly double over a 6 year period, with the increase being 6 cores instead of 4(forced by Ryzen core counts. AMD broke that mould by offering more cores than Intel when Intel was gouging their customers for quad core i7's, but that seems to be over now. I bring this up in light of the expected MSRP of the new Threadripper lines, going for way more than the 2nd generation parts did - offering more cores, but costing way more, and the upcoming 3950X AM4 part has been slotted in where the 2950X was positioned last gen. It's like AMD has said we will be charging 50 per core, so more cores means much higher prices If they follow this logic through with the expected 64 core Threadripper it will cost well over 3000, a price that would even make Intel blush! I am seeing the same thing with the GPU side as well, where they give you a crap base model that sometimes gets beaten by last gen parts, and they then charge you per CUDA core for any increase to performance. This has the effect of making the mid range price bracket jump from 250 to 400, and the high end costs well over 1000, where it once cost around 800- 1000 max for the top range GPU. I am a budget builder, and I am seeing the cost of the parts I would use to put a build together go through the roof, for little to no performance gain over the last generation parts. I surf the used part markets now for good value(bit of a minefield though, as new parts no longer offer decent price to performance uplifts, like there used to be.
reply
mpeugeot
While the 200GE (stock 3. 2 GHz) overclocking to 3. 9 GHz is impressive, what's also impressive is that the Ryzen 5 1400 4c/8t processor (stock 3. 2 GHz Boost 3. 4 GHz), at least my two samples, would easily overclock to 4. 0 and 4. 2 GHz, all cores, 24/7, with nothing more than a 212Evo air cooler at under 1. 4v. Actually, it seems like all Ryzen 1st gen overclock like mad. (25% single core gains and 33% all core gains are not atypical. I did get upset when I couldn't hit 4. 3GHz all core on my Ryzen 7 1700 earlier (probably not enough voltage, but it was running 4. 2 GHz stable on a 212Evo at 1. 400v (CPU-z 477/5211) vs (Stock CPU-z 379/3903. It was thumping the Ryzen 7 2700x (CPU-z 466/4857); it even beat the i9-9900K multi-threaded (CPU-z 543/5136. (Proof - //valid. x86. fr/bench/409j3h) - I wish Ryzen 3xxx series would overclock like this!
reply
While the 200GE (stock 3. 2 GHz) overclocking to 3. 9 GHz is impressive, what's also impressive is that the Ryzen 5 1400 4c/8t processor (stock 3. 2 GHz Boost 3. 4 GHz), at least my two samples, would easily overclock to 4. 0 and 4. 2 GHz, all cores, 24/7, with nothing more than a 212Evo air cooler at under 1. 4v. Actually, it seems like all Ryzen 1st gen overclock like mad. (25% single core gains and 33% all core gains are not atypical. I did get upset when I couldn't hit 4. 3GHz all core on my Ryzen 7 1700 earlier (probably not enough voltage, but it was running 4. 2 GHz stable on a 212Evo at 1. 400v (CPU-z 477/5211) vs (Stock CPU-z 379/3903. It was thumping the Ryzen 7 2700x (CPU-z 466/4857); it even beat the i9-9900K multi-threaded (CPU-z 543/5136. (Proof - //valid. x86. fr/bench/409j3h) - I wish Ryzen 3xxx series would overclock like this!
reply
flinchey
Since AMD has shown their willingness to screw over HEDT buyers with unneccessary changes to pin layout like Intel - imo unless you're a business, you're a sucker if you buy Trx4. All x399 needed to shine instead of being mediocre, is the 30% single core uplift zen2 would bring. I feel scammed with how much I paid only 12 months ago. and I know guys who just purchased a ZE alpha. I don't get why they treat am4 customers so well but Tr4 are second class citizens. I paid so much, and this will have dropped prices so far, it's not even worth me selling to change to a 3950x Where if I'd saved money 12-18 months ago and got an AM4 board, i'd have what I should be able to buy now - 3950x. I just want a 3955x, drop in Tr4 16 core zen2: '(
reply
Since AMD has shown their willingness to screw over HEDT buyers with unneccessary changes to pin layout like Intel - imo unless you're a business, you're a sucker if you buy Trx4. All x399 needed to shine instead of being mediocre, is the 30% single core uplift zen2 would bring. I feel scammed with how much I paid only 12 months ago. and I know guys who just purchased a ZE alpha. I don't get why they treat am4 customers so well but Tr4 are second class citizens. I paid so much, and this will have dropped prices so far, it's not even worth me selling to change to a 3950x Where if I'd saved money 12-18 months ago and got an AM4 board, i'd have what I should be able to buy now - 3950x. I just want a 3955x, drop in Tr4 16 core zen2: '(
reply
zshadows
Does anybody else think AMD marketing botched their product naming big, big, BIG time? Like, the 3600(X) makes sense, then the 3700X is ok-ish. Then the 3800X is just a slightly faster 3700X. And the 3900X is 4 more cores. Then the 3950X is another 4 more cores. Then the 3960X is a completely different platform in another class with an additional 8 cores. The 3700X should have been a 3700. The 3800X should have been the 3700X. The 3900X should have been the 3800. And then the 3950X should have been a 3850 or 3900. It feels like they realized they didn't need to bump core counts down the chain due to Intel noncompetition, so they spread things out to make minor differences pull more money from ignorant consumers.
reply
Does anybody else think AMD marketing botched their product naming big, big, BIG time? Like, the 3600(X) makes sense, then the 3700X is ok-ish. Then the 3800X is just a slightly faster 3700X. And the 3900X is 4 more cores. Then the 3950X is another 4 more cores. Then the 3960X is a completely different platform in another class with an additional 8 cores. The 3700X should have been a 3700. The 3800X should have been the 3700X. The 3900X should have been the 3800. And then the 3950X should have been a 3850 or 3900. It feels like they realized they didn't need to bump core counts down the chain due to Intel noncompetition, so they spread things out to make minor differences pull more money from ignorant consumers.
reply
Davey
Watching this on my 999 1st gen pre-ordered overclocked 1950x. Zero regrets. This CPU is going to be put in a picture frame some day. It's weird I had HEDT intel CPU's prior but AMD made CPU's exciting again! I havent felt like this since Cyrix released the 133MHz x686! back when I was in high school and all the nerds were DROOLING (and you could buy them at walmart. Exotic architectures are what gives me a boner.
reply
Watching this on my 999 1st gen pre-ordered overclocked 1950x. Zero regrets. This CPU is going to be put in a picture frame some day. It's weird I had HEDT intel CPU's prior but AMD made CPU's exciting again! I havent felt like this since Cyrix released the 133MHz x686! back when I was in high school and all the nerds were DROOLING (and you could buy them at walmart. Exotic architectures are what gives me a boner.
reply
Franklin
Why do these 2 core cpu's only go up to 3. 0-4. 0 Ghz when these 16 core chips get to 4. 5-5. 0? Wouldn't putting less cores together allow them to push them further without thermals getting too high? Is it the integrated graphics? Would love to see how far they could push a 4 core nowadays with the smaller processes they use.
reply
Why do these 2 core cpu's only go up to 3. 0-4. 0 Ghz when these 16 core chips get to 4. 5-5. 0? Wouldn't putting less cores together allow them to push them further without thermals getting too high? Is it the integrated graphics? Would love to see how far they could push a 4 core nowadays with the smaller processes they use.
reply
GamerDude
Remember guys Intel charged almost 10, 000 server cpus with like less than half the cores/threads and is SECURITY VULNERABLE that crapped its performance! while AMDs offering is even more than that and price is very far from Intels then again Intel shills says its overpriced! DaFuq is wrong with their brains.
reply
Remember guys Intel charged almost 10, 000 server cpus with like less than half the cores/threads and is SECURITY VULNERABLE that crapped its performance! while AMDs offering is even more than that and price is very far from Intels then again Intel shills says its overpriced! DaFuq is wrong with their brains.
reply
Jon
Hello, Steve; Thanks for all you do, it's appreciated. Great video! Loved it, Dude! Unfortunately it looks like more hi-end hardware I can't afford unless someone dies & I inherit a ton of. But that Athlon [maybe w/ a 4 core/8 thread version] looks really interesting. Thanks again. Have a GREAT day, Neighbor!
reply
Hello, Steve; Thanks for all you do, it's appreciated. Great video! Loved it, Dude! Unfortunately it looks like more hi-end hardware I can't afford unless someone dies & I inherit a ton of. But that Athlon [maybe w/ a 4 core/8 thread version] looks really interesting. Thanks again. Have a GREAT day, Neighbor!
reply
Sgt
Hey, was looking around and no one has any kind of comparative data on older A-series CPUs vs the new Athlons. Would be nice to have any info even if it's a Yes they are better enough to be worth an upgrade to improve internet based tasks. Sincerely, A guy wondering if he should upgrade his parents comp
reply
Hey, was looking around and no one has any kind of comparative data on older A-series CPUs vs the new Athlons. Would be nice to have any info even if it's a Yes they are better enough to be worth an upgrade to improve internet based tasks. Sincerely, A guy wondering if he should upgrade his parents comp
reply
Ali
If their chip is so good why the hell is there an embargo on this? I was thinking about this the last few weeks. The CPU is meant to be released so soon and yet there is no news on this in the slightest except the same dumb screenshot released by them. What the hell is going on? Just smells of scam.
reply
If their chip is so good why the hell is there an embargo on this? I was thinking about this the last few weeks. The CPU is meant to be released so soon and yet there is no news on this in the slightest except the same dumb screenshot released by them. What the hell is going on? Just smells of scam.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
