Quantcast
View Post

Nice build. What's the clock speed and timings of your RAM?

fatslob-:O said:
vivster said:

But can it run Crysis?

Edit: I just checked out of curiosity because the price point of $500 seemed a bit high for AMD. My hunch was correct. Looks like the 9900K is actually cheaper AND slightly better for gaming than the 3900X. Did not expect that. The 9700 is even cheaper and still better. Looks like the 3700X is basically the same as the 3900X in games but loads cheaper. I'm just gonna hope for everyone that those core heavy monsters will become useful in gaming at some point.

I don't think anybody expects the 3900X to be a gaming value oriented CPU, it's mostly just a productivity monster ... 

I believe most people expect the 3700X to be the main gamer's CPU since it's much better value with nearly identical gaming performance to the 3900X. Also, the 9900K is like 5 dollars cheaper which is practically scraping the barrel at that point ... 

More cores won't be the straw that breaks the camel's back when the competition isn't doing anything ... 

While the 3900X is a productivity monster, it's not far behind in games. The difference is so low now that even if it's not bottlenecked by the GPU (which is true 95% of the time), it's not felt any slower than the i9 9900K.

But yeah, for pure gaming, 3700X or 3800X are better choices, unless you want to keep your CPU for 5+ years, as by then the extra cores might come in handy even during gaming. Still, the 3900X seems to hit slightly higher speeds than the 2 octacores, so AMD is probably binning it's fastest chips into this one (and probably the future 3950X).