EPTi have the retailer do the bios updates
upgraded to a 2060 super
changed case
i think the 3600 is so much more value than the 3700x
thanks for ur help!
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread - Page 695
| Forum Index > Tech Support |
When using this resource, please read the opening post. The Tech Support forum regulars have helped create countless of desktop systems without any compensation. The least you can do is provide all of the information required for them to help you properly. | ||
|
teddyoojo
Germany22369 Posts
i have the retailer do the bios updates upgraded to a 2060 super changed case i think the 3600 is so much more value than the 3700x thanks for ur help! | ||
|
TVRepair001
1 Post
| ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20318 Posts
| ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On July 30 2019 07:59 Cyro wrote: I wonder how much volume AMD has shipped for the 3000 series, seems to be a decent amount but the demand is extremely high. UK retailers are deep into pre-orders and stepping up prices above MSRP as they get more orders than they're able to fulfill. Could be the hottest quarter for their CPU sales in a very long time I'll be buying zen 2 in september. Waiting for the 3950x rather not have disabled cores of the 3900x on the chiplets for latency dependent programs; the ccx has improved a ton but the infinity fabric is still relatively "slow". | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20318 Posts
On July 30 2019 08:17 semantics wrote: I'll be buying zen 2 in september. Waiting for the 3950x rather not have disabled cores of the 3900x on the chiplets for latency dependent programs; the ccx has improved a ton but the infinity fabric is still relatively "slow". What impacts would you expect that to have? It should be easily testable now since we have CPU's with 3 and 4 cores enabled per CCX already. | ||
|
Lmui
Canada6214 Posts
On July 30 2019 09:47 Cyro wrote: What impacts would you expect that to have? It should be easily testable now since we have CPU's with 3 and 4 cores enabled per CCX already. As far as I've seen, the latency diff is non-existant. https://www.anandtech.com/show/14605/the-and-ryzen-3700x-3900x-review-raising-the-bar/2 Each CCX has 16MB of cache before running to memory and there's two CCX (1/chiplet) with access to 16MB of L3. Everything runs to memory the same way through IF via I/O die, so latency between all cores is gonna be the same. The 3900X will likely run into (marginally) less cache misses in dual threaded workflows due to the two cores with extra L3 memory, but will be slower in true multi-threaded workflows. Yes it's relatively high latency to memory, but it'll be the same between 3900x/3950x as far as I can tell because L3 isn't shared outside the CCX. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20318 Posts
On July 30 2019 16:11 Lmui wrote: As far as I've seen, the latency diff is non-existant. https://www.anandtech.com/show/14605/the-and-ryzen-3700x-3900x-review-raising-the-bar/2 Each CCX has 16MB of cache before running to memory and there's two CCX (1/chiplet) with access to 16MB of L3. Everything runs to memory the same way through IF via I/O die, so latency between all cores is gonna be the same. The 3900X will likely run into (marginally) less cache misses in dual threaded workflows due to the two cores with extra L3 memory, but will be slower in true multi-threaded workflows. Yes it's relatively high latency to memory, but it'll be the same between 3900x/3950x as far as I can tell because L3 isn't shared outside the CCX. AFAIK the core-to-core latency within a CCX is substantially lower than the latency across CCX's. I seem to recall that the cross-ccx and cross-die latency was the same, though; can't find comparisons at the moment. Basically you can run three threads at full power within one CCX on certain CPU's (3600, 3900x) but four on others (3700, 3950x). That may be significant in some programs or it may be basically irrelevant, depending on the differences in latency and the way that the CPU and cache/memory is utilized. Running a program across multiple CCX's means doubling the available L3 cache pool and maybe some other resources* and that usually leads to substantial performance gains for MT programs despite the loss in core-to-core latency. The usage case that i'm mainly concerned about is something like running WoW; people have reported sometimes that locking a program to one CCX results in more performance than letting it utilize any core freely, yet doing so on a CPU with 4c8t per CCX may give it a little more performance than a CPU with 3c6t per CCX. This could lead to situations like a 3700 and 3950x both outperforming a 3900x by 5% which may be something to keep in mind if you were considering buying a 3900x. WoW in particular does scale beyond 3 cores yet it's highly dependent on the performance of the main thread and splitting threads across CCX's may hurt critical CPU performance tasks like the multi-threaded renderer. As far as i can tell, 3700x's (2xCCX) tend to hit a bit higher clock than 3900x's (4xCCX) as well, which could give them a few percent more of an edge. There are some hacks to overclock each CCX individually when given a set override voltage which benefit the 3900x more as it's more likely to be held back by individual weaker CCX's but they are not well supported at the moment or safe for general users to use; that may change in the future. All-in-all the 8c16t is actually looking like a great cheap CPU, although 6c12t is adequate for most users and an absolute powerhouse. Going up to 12c is great for MT but possible performance regressions on games vs the 8 core worry me a little as a tweaker that often pushes to get that last 3-5% perf. It makes me wonder if maybe i should just grab an 8 core and put the rest of the money away to jump onto the high end of the viciously competitive 2021 DDR5 platforms. There are all sorts of funny edge cases like this to benchmark that haven't come up in most reviews, hell, i haven't even seen a single benchmark of WoW or SC2 on these CPU's to begin with. *My zen2 knowledge still has some holes in it, i'm sure a lot of this is out there if people wanna research | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On July 30 2019 20:54 Cyro wrote: AFAIK the core-to-core latency within a CCX is substantially lower than the latency across CCX's ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/gsU25QD.png) source(not english) https://3dnews.ru/990367/obzor-amd-ryzen-9-3900x https://3dnews.ru/990334/obzor-amd-ryzen-7-3700x I did not have any specific workloads in mind when making my decision to wait for the 3950x For servers there are at least somewhat common workloads that can become latency sensitive, although there are plenty of ways around that. For regular consumers it's mostly just a nice thing to have. It can also insulate you from say a lazily coded game AI that ends up chasing pointers. I mean the latency issues was a part of the whole, "windows scheduler sucks" when people were talking about ryzen when it first came out. As it was costing them performance, so why not fret over it. I just feel like if i'm spending money i might as well have good chips of complete chiplets instead of disabled cores.Plus it seems like AMD is binning the better chips to the higher end products, that coupled with how zen 2 boosts it's clock i figured it's a win-win-win. | ||
|
Lmui
Canada6214 Posts
On July 30 2019 23:47 semantics wrote: source(not english) https://3dnews.ru/990367/obzor-amd-ryzen-9-3900x https://3dnews.ru/990334/obzor-amd-ryzen-7-3700x I did not have any specific workloads in mind when making my decision to wait for the 3950x For servers there are at least somewhat common workloads that can become latency sensitive, although there are plenty of ways around that. For regular consumers it's mostly just a nice thing to have. It can also insulate you from say a lazily coded game AI that ends up chasing pointers. I mean the latency issues was a part of the whole, "windows scheduler sucks" when people were talking about ryzen when it first came out. As it was costing them performance, so why not fret over it. I just feel like if i'm spending money i might as well have good chips of complete chiplets instead of disabled cores.Plus it seems like AMD is binning the better chips to the higher end products, that coupled with how zen 2 boosts it's clock i figured it's a win-win-win. Oh cool, hadn't seen that before. ~2 months to go then, til a 3950X is available for on the market. https://siliconlottery.com/collections/all From the looks of the lottery/distribution of parts, the 3800X is ~150Mhz all-core better than the 3700X, and the 3900X is approximately equal to the 3700X. A 3950X at 4.3+Ghz all core would be pretty incredible I think. https://fuse.wikichip.org/news/2567/tsmc-talks-7nm-5nm-yield-and-next-gen-5g-and-hpc-packaging/ Some preview of what's to come with zen 3. It's presumably going to be on N7+/N7P. I'd guess ~4.5-4.6Ghz parts next year, and Intel might finally get the 10nm 10th gen performance parts out the door. It's gonna be a fun time next year since both CPU manufacturers gotta step up their game. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20318 Posts
From the looks of the lottery/distribution of parts, the 3800X is ~150Mhz all-core better than the 3700X, and the 3900X is approximately equal to the 3700X. A 3950X at 4.3+Ghz all core would be pretty incredible I think. Having looked a bit just now, i don't think that the 3800x has much of a niche. It's an 8c16t part like the 3700x but it currently costs 33% more. That may get you 100-200mhz more on the silicon lottery but it's an awful lot of money (£100 more) to spend for that much of a bump on a CPU which is not high end. | ||
|
Lmui
Canada6214 Posts
On July 31 2019 01:23 Cyro wrote: Excellent pic, thank you Having looked a bit just now, i don't think that the 3800x has much of a niche. It's an 8c16t part like the 3700x but it currently costs 33% more. That may get you 100-200mhz more on the silicon lottery but it's an awful lot of money (£100 more) to spend for that much of a bump on a CPU which is not high end. Agreed. The 3600 and the 3700X are the best buys of this generation for CPUs and will probably drive the highest sales numbers for the forseeable future (Barring the 3500 being a 6C/12T part and a 3700 8C/16T part, if/when released). The 3600X and 3800X are weird products in that the price premium doesn't really justify the small performance improvements in most scenarios. The 3900X/3950X have their roles, but it'll be niche outside of the workstation market. The only role the 3800X has is that it's the king of AMD gaming performance at the moment. The problem with this is that for a comparable price/role, you might as well grab an Intel 9700k, OC to 5ghz and call it a day. There's just no way to overcome the 700-900mhz disadvantage that it'll have on all cores. Maybe if you already have a AMD 2xxx CPU and need that CPU upgrade to the best that AMD offers? | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20318 Posts
On August 01 2019 01:26 Lmui wrote: Agreed. The 3600 and the 3700X are the best buys of this generation for CPUs and will probably drive the highest sales numbers for the forseeable future (Barring the 3500 being a 6C/12T part and a 3700 8C/16T part, if/when released). The 3600X and 3800X are weird products in that the price premium doesn't really justify the small performance improvements in most scenarios. The 3900X/3950X have their roles, but it'll be niche outside of the workstation market. The only role the 3800X has is that it's the king of AMD gaming performance at the moment. The problem with this is that for a comparable price/role, you might as well grab an Intel 9700k, OC to 5ghz and call it a day. There's just no way to overcome the 700-900mhz disadvantage that it'll have on all cores. Maybe if you already have a AMD 2xxx CPU and need that CPU upgrade to the best that AMD offers? Sustained 12-24t clock speeds doesn't matter much for most games, the boost clocks are considerably higher because they don't load that many threads. The higher clocked CPU's run around 4.4 - 4.5ghz at times, particularly on low threaded games. They also have an enormous lead in IO performance since the security hole fixes for intel have crippled them until beyond the forseeable future. I have two 14nm++ intel CPU's (same process) which aren't capable of 5ghz at tolerable voltages. The one that i have in my system which ran 4.9 @1.375vcore, load temps in the 70's for the last 5 quarters seems to have degraded by at least 0.03v in that time - it used to overnight on 1.355, eventually crashing easily at 1.375 while under the same workload (I still have the exact same executable in a folder on my secondary SSD) yet rock solid stable again when dropping the core by 100mhz with no other changes. I had to eat that drop to 4.8ghz core or face raising volts to >1.4v to maintain 4.9ghz, running it hotter and degrading it even faster. I'm not sure of the stats for exactly how unlucky that was but it's definitely not guaranteed that you can lock 5.0ghz, even when delidded. tl;dr i think 700-900mhz is a bit of an exaggeration in practice for games. The IPC difference between games is quite big with zen2 occasionally winning out despite that frequency deficit so it's dangerous to assume that it's substantially slower even if it's often the case. | ||
|
Lmui
Canada6214 Posts
On August 01 2019 04:41 Cyro wrote: Sustained 12-24t clock speeds doesn't matter much for most games, the boost clocks are considerably higher because they don't load that many threads. The higher clocked CPU's run around 4.4 - 4.5ghz at times, particularly on low threaded games. They also have an enormous lead in IO performance since the security hole fixes for intel have crippled them until beyond the forseeable future. I have two 14nm++ intel CPU's (same process) which aren't capable of 5ghz at tolerable voltages. The one that i have in my system which ran 4.9 @1.375vcore, load temps in the 70's for the last 5 quarters seems to have degraded by at least 0.03v in that time - it used to overnight on 1.355, eventually crashing easily at 1.375 while under the same workload (I still have the exact same executable in a folder on my secondary SSD) yet rock solid stable again when dropping the core by 100mhz with no other changes. I had to eat that drop to 4.8ghz core or face raising volts to >1.4v to maintain 4.9ghz, running it hotter and degrading it even faster. I'm not sure of the stats for exactly how unlucky that was but it's definitely not guaranteed that you can lock 5.0ghz, even when delidded. tl;dr i think 700-900mhz is a bit of an exaggeration in practice for games. The IPC difference between games is quite big with zen2 occasionally winning out despite that frequency deficit so it's dangerous to assume that it's substantially slower even if it's often the case. I wouldn't say substantially slower, but my point was mainly that the 3800X's niche is pretty similar to the 9700k's at this point. Gaming performance at the expense of money (But the 3800X is better everywhere else, I'd agree). AMD does take some wins in CS:GO and a few others, but it's largely behind the 9700k and especially the 9900k. On another topic: https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/ckll72/7nm_ryzen_catapults_amd_into_the_lead_75_of_rev/ https://imgur.com/gallery/wuDcgaY First month sales report from mindfactory.de is out thanks to a guy on reddit. The 3700X took the lions share of the sales. The 3600X and 3800X are quite unpopular, selling even less than the 3900X combined. Surprisingly, the 3700X is more popular than the 3600. I guess that in a few months once OEMs start building machines the 3600 might overtake the 3700X, but it surprised me for sure. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20318 Posts
Back to zen2 performance - there are a surprisingly large variety of benchmarks that come in 3-10% higher with SMT off, particularly on the 3900x which has enough cores to saturate many multi-threaded but not very highly parallel programs without needing SMT | ||
|
ApatheticSchizoid
Canada85 Posts
| ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
700CAD probably means you'd be stuck using a TN panel if you want to keep 1440p and G-sync TN panels have poor off axis viewing angles and color reproduction but the best pixel response VA panels have great color reproduction and blacks but viewing angles depends on the panel generally it's better than a TN; the pixel response is usually the slowest of the three but all G sync monitors this is pretty minor IPS panels have great color reproduction but blacks can be washed out due to IPS glow, mostly effects movies. IPS panels have a somewhat common defect of black light bleed which if unlucky you can end up with. | ||
|
ApatheticSchizoid
Canada85 Posts
On August 05 2019 01:04 semantics wrote: https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/products/g-sync-monitors/specs/ 700CAD probably means you'd be stuck using a TN panel if you want to keep 1440p and G-sync TN panels have poor off axis viewing angles and color reproduction but the best pixel response VA panels have great color reproduction and blacks but viewing angles depends on the panel generally it's better than a TN; the pixel response is usually the slowest of the three but all G sync monitors this is pretty minor IPS panels have great color reproduction but blacks can be washed out due to IPS glow, mostly effects movies. IPS panels have a somewhat common defect of black light bleed which if unlucky you can end up with. I have two old asus proart IPS monitors currently, so it doesn't bother me if I end up with one. Was looking at this one. https://www.newegg.ca/p/N82E16824025121?Item=N82E16824025121 It's more or less in my price range right now on sale. Just never owned anything LG, so not sure what people say about them. What about the few freesync monitors that are now G-sync compatible. Not sure what the difference would be. | ||
|
Lmui
Canada6214 Posts
On August 05 2019 01:33 ApatheticSchizoid wrote: I have two old asus proart IPS monitors currently, so it doesn't bother me if I end up with one. Was looking at this one. https://www.newegg.ca/p/N82E16824025121?Item=N82E16824025121 It's more or less in my price range right now on sale. Just never owned anything LG, so not sure what people say about them. What about the few freesync monitors that are now G-sync compatible. Not sure what the difference would be. G-Sync compatible is literally Nvidia going to Freesync, and marketing proper G-sync as a higher end product. https://www.newegg.ca/p/N82E16824025955?Description=27GL850 &cm_re=27GL850-_-24-025-955-_-Product This is your best bet in the near future. It's a new panel, about to release and reviews are pretty damn stellar so far: https://www.reddit.com/r/Monitors/comments/cjre41/lg_27gl850b_review_and_first_impressions/ It's unlikely other manufacturers will have the panel to make their own monitors in the near future (LG makes the panel/monitor). It's at the top end of your price range but not much you can do about that for a new product. | ||
|
konadora
Singapore66355 Posts
| ||
|
Amui
Canada10567 Posts
On August 05 2019 10:58 konadora wrote: is the stock cooler for the 3700x good enough when paired with a 2070 super? or do i need to get a dedicated cpu cooler (air or liquid cooling, if so?) Honestly, as long as you have sufficient case airflow, the stock cooler should be easily enough unless you're doing some overclocking+heavy workloads. Even with a small case(I have a fractal define C, went from a 750D), as long as you manage cables to keep airflow clear, I only saw a ~1C increase in idle temps and 3-4C under load even after placing some paper to ensure GPU(2070 with open air cooler) got cool air by dumping all the exhaust to the CPU section(kinda sectioned with one intake fan on CPU/GPU). If you have a case with more room and sufficient airflow, I don't think any GPU would be an issue. | ||
| ||
