| Captain_Yuri said: "Again. Long term costs. But there is a very good chance it won't because of the early adopter tax on a new platform. If he waits a few years, he can get AM5 and DDR5 for cheap instead of having to pay the early adopter premium while enjoying the 30-50% extra performance he can get by going with 5800X3D + X570 + 4080 instead of 7700X + X670 + DDR5 + 4070. And if you really want to talk about long term costs, we have seen how drastically the CPU/Mobo/Ram prices can drop but we have also seen how drastically the GPU prices can increase. If there's one lesson we learnt in the past two Crypto booms killing GPU prices... Is that it's better to get the best GPU you can over other components as long as the other components are reasonably good. CPU/Mobo/Ram prices will only get cheaper the longer you wait after their initial release but there is no guarantee GPU prices will. |
Then perhaps waiting for AM5 to drop is the obvious answer to see how the chips fall.
| Captain_Yuri said: "Not a single one of those games is under 120fps. That makes the 3950X is fine." You do realize that those are very old games right? You should watch DF's RT video and realize how much of a bottleneck the 3000 series really is when you enable Ray Tracing which is very CPU intensive. We have seen through multiple games that 3000 series can't hold 60fps when you max out RT even with a 3080 let alone 4080. |
Even digital foundry has the Ryzen 3600+Geforce RTX 2600 at over 60fps.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKHiwnZ3zJo&t=648s
Ryzen 3600+Geforce RTX 3050 also getting over 60fps in cyberpunk.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtrN_gnqaB8
Ryzen 3600 averaging 80fps in Call of Duty Cold War, 60fps in Control, 120fps in Wolfenstein, 60fps in Watchdogs, 70fps in Metro, 70fps in Tomb Raider, 70fps in Battlefield 5... When paired up with a mid range RTX 3060 Ti. - A faster GPU would obviously provide higher framerates.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=al9FX6mi3QA
And here... Digital Foundry has Doom Eternal with Ray Tracing on a Ryzen 3600 obtaining 120fps.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZ5ZyVYlq5A&t=202s
Ray Tracing is primarily GPU bound, especially at higher resolutions.
And considering you can obtain that performance from a crappy Ryzen 3600... Which is only a 6-Core/12-Thread CPU @ 3.8Ghz-4.4Ghz+32MB of cache verses the 3950X which is 16 Cores/32 Theads @ 3.5-4.7Ghz+64MB of cache.
You get the idea. - And yes, I know what a Ryzen 3600 is capable of, I owned one last year for overclocking tests. I also own Ray Tracing GPU's, got experience first hand.
And like you alluded too earlier... Cache isn't to be underestimated.
The 3950X or even 3900XT (Has higher clocks) is a great chip for EOL platforms which can't go any higher.
| Captain_Yuri said: As a 5950X and a 3080 owner, I am aware of the benefits of higher core count but as a general recommendation, it really doesn't benefit most people compared to ST performance. Especially if the higher core count CPU will introduce a significant bottleneck for the GPU. And as a person who had 3900X + 3080 that played at 3440 x 1440p who eventually got a 5950x instead. The CPU bottleneck was there because I certainly got a frame rate increase by going to 5000 series. |
You know... People have been singing that tune for decades.
Back when Dual Core CPU's first released, it didn't benefit games to any great extent... They were all single threaded.
Eventually games started to use more than 1-CPU core... And those early (Athlon 64 X2) CPU's got an extra long relevant lifetime because of it.
When the Core 2 series burst onto the scene, people always recommended the higher clocked Core 2 Duo over something like the Core 2 Quad, however as games started to leverage 4 threads, the Core 2 Quad was simply capable of gaming for longer.
History eventually repeated itself with Nahelem and the 980X with it's 6 cores/12 threads. - And now that's regarded as bare minimum these days for gaming.
And obviously you will get a frame-rate increase going from the 3000 series to the 5000 series, that was the point of the entire new CPU generation and architecture, but it doesn't make the previous generation obsolete, far from it.
Regardless of GPU you have, if you install a faster CPU, you get more performance.
But then you step into the shoes of a power user like myself who might only run old single/dual threaded games, but still has a 16 core 5000 series processor. Why? Because I run more than one thing at once.
| JEMC said: Delaying the launch of your CPUs because you have problems with the BIOS is never a good sign. And, as Yuri said, we know how AMD struggled with it when they launched their Zen processors. The only positives to take from this (you know, trying to look at the bright side) is that 1) AMD must have found a big problem and will have it fixed before launch; and 2) We know that they'll keep working on fixing all the kinks that appear as they've done it with Zen 1 to 3. The only negative is that the motherboards are already shipping to retail, and that means that most if not all boards available at launch and shortly after will need to get updated. |
Correct me if I am wrong... But I think this BIOS/Chipset is an AMD in-house design rather than contracted from another manufacturer?
Would explain a lot.
AMD has always had buggy BIOS's though... To the point where they would unlock hidden/disabled CPU cores on the Phenom 2.
Still better than the old VIA or SiS chipsets though... Still have PTSD over them.
--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--
Essay Pro