AMD 16-Core Ryzen 9 3950X: Up to 4.7 GHz, 105W, Coming September

172 Comments

View All Comments

• LegionR - Wednesday, June 12, 2019 - link

  The 16-core one is definitely not targeted towards gamers, it's for people who actually perform worthwhile tasks like design, rendering and many more.

• xrror - Monday, June 10, 2019 - link

  Okay AnandTech, I give you a mission. (pre-post edit: assuming you can get parts/samples of course)
  Whenever the 3950X becomes available... test it on something with good bios support but is "cheap and cheery" in the channel.
  
  By that I mean something stupid like say (ASRock AB350M PRO4) or sure random Asus Strix x50 board.
  
  Because seriously, that sort of combo truly highlights what AMD is offering with AM4 compatibility.
  
  I... hope? There are enough readers, who on a budget, reading Anandtech for info, are interested in the possibility of what a 3600 or 3700 on their "old" 3xx and 4xx series AM4 boards would do for them.
  
  Using a 3950X on a B350 board sure is... the extreme case but also - if that combo shines means AMD executed perfectly. BUT any faults in that combo would also be super informative in things to look out for.
  
  I wish I could wordcraft better - the fact that the above combo is possible... is awesome!
  
  We're in a fun time (again!) where AMD is on the cusp of being underdog to leadership (for a bit) and we get things like socket AM4 for more than 2 gens of proc.
  
  This is a bit of an opportunity, since we don't get things like core 2 quad on old Pentium 4 chipsets (975x P5W DH Deluxe) because Intel loves us (the last era Intel really got pushed). A weaker analog on the AMD side is Thurban Phenom x6 to FX transition AM2 AM2+ AM3.
  
  I guess my rambling incoherent hardware love letter is this. Test a 3950x on the nearest to $85 AM4 motherboard that isn't a known pile of garbage, and ... you know even if it throttles a bit, if that is a working combo, slamming a $750 proc on your existing $85 board and it doesn't explode and actually, even if throttled is still 364.6% faster as a drop in upgrade to your self built computer from 2 years ago...
  
  That's a huge win for AMD. And why I love PC hardware ;)

• jeremyshaw - Monday, June 10, 2019 - link

  That's exactly my usecase right now.
  
  B350 ITX board (ASRock), currently serving HTPC duties. If it has a better future replacing my Z270 Intel setup, I'll upgrade early. If it doesn't, I'll probably wait.

• Hul8 - Monday, June 10, 2019 - link

  AMD is recommending combining the 3950X only with a X570 motherboard - presumably because of the power delivery quality/headroom.
  
  I wouldn't put it past them to limit which chipsets are qualified for (overclocking) the 12- and 16-core parts due to power constraints.
  
  It makes perfect sense, since that way
  1) motherboard vendors don't need to overbuild the power delivery on the lower end boards, saving costs and allowing lower prices (and the budget options that are sorely missing in all vendors' X570 lineups);
  2) the chipsets get differentiated more, since overclocking a high-end CPU will *require* that expensive X570 board.
  
  PCIe 4 support would be another way to differentiate and cut costs: Support for it may be cut entirely on B550 (for both CPU and chipset). Would anyone want to use the $750 16-core CPU on a motherboard with only PCIe 3? Not being able to add a PCIe 4 SSD a year from now, when they're probably more readily available from most manufacturers?

• xrror - Tuesday, June 11, 2019 - link

  I don't disagree on AMD's recommended. I just want to know on AMD's "technically valid but not-recommended" where if the mobo maker didn't totally cheap out - you have a surprise winner.
  
  To be realistic, if any mobo vendor did something nuts like... enable 3950x support on an A320 board. When that combo exploded overclocked? I'm torn in that it is awesome that you could use that proc on a board that was made before those demands could be imagined, but it sucks that you're going to blame the maker of your $40 mobo that they gave you the ability to explode your system with a $750 proc.
  
  But I would like to see some runs with the 3600 and 3700 with some budget B350 boards.
  
  I show my age when I get angry that motherboard makers that have the... cahoons to release beta bios's that let boards operate "outside of specification" over the years have gotten slammed for releasing "bad" bios's and/or motherboards because Joe/Jane bob can't comprehend "when this bios voltage number is flashing red/white with a skull, that might not be a good thing long term"

• Hul8 - Tuesday, June 11, 2019 - link

  The TDPs present of the Ryzen 3rd gen are the same as Ryzen 2nd gen. (Gen 1 didn't have 105W, IIRC.) The TDP only applies to stock operation, though.
  
  The problem arises from having 50% or 100% more cores than you used to; At that point the power demands from more voltage and frequency stack up quickly and the earlier generation motherboards may not allow much power headroom.
  
  Up to 8 cores should be fine, and overclocking on B350/450 similar to Ryzen 2000 with the same core count.

• SaturnusDK - Tuesday, June 11, 2019 - link

  It's not only that. Smaller lithographies means lower voltage so that means in order to deliver the same power, you have to supply more ampere. That's not an easy task, and why some B350/X370 MBs in particular might have problems with even the 12 core 3900X. It's much easier to provide low amp at high voltage than the reverse. But we shall see in testing.

• TheUnhandledException - Tuesday, June 11, 2019 - link

  The 3700X has lower TDP. The 3700X is 65W. The 2700X was 105W and the 1700X was 95W. The 3700X is looking like one nice CPU. No clock improvement over the 2700X but 15% higher IPC and 1/3rd less power? Yes Please.

• jeremyshaw - Tuesday, June 11, 2019 - link

  Eh, we already see with the 2700X that AMD doesn't always strictly adhere to the classical TDP definition. Anandtech's Ryzen 2 review covers that. System power consumption for CPU-only tasks on the 2700X seem to match Intel's 9900k, and the 2600X system power for CPU-only tasks seem to exceed the 8700k.
  
  I know Anandtech writers are in love with trusting power readings from internal CPU registers, but in the end, total system power draw doesn't lie. We also know some tools (like HWInfo) are not reliable at measuring AMD Ryzen power draw (the creator of HWInfo believes AMD engineers don't know their own CPU, and HWInfo underreports AMD power draw significantly - by almost 2:1 on my E485 laptop [Ryzen 2500U], vs AMD's own performance profiling tool).

• Hul8 - Tuesday, June 11, 2019 - link

  Tom's Hardware publishes power figures from their German sister site who directly measure consumption from individual power cables and a PCIe riser.
  
  Gaming loop:
  - Ryzen 7 2700X: 55.7W
  - Core i7-8700K: 66.8W
  
  Torture loop:
  - 2700X: 104.7W
  - 8700K 159.5W
  
  Source:
  Test setup on page 4: https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-2... (power measuring hardware near the bottom of the page)
  Power results on page 12: https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-2...