what to do..... i9-10980XE, AMD 3950x, 3960x, or even 3970x.... ugh

[DaPoets]

So I was all excited about going w/ the i9-10980XE due to the performance and price cut, and I have been 100% intel since the Q6600 days. AMD has my head turning a bit ( a lot...) w/ this Threadripper 3000 line and even the 3950X... Is anyone else in a similar situation where you are old school intel but may be willing to jump ship for team red? I was really thinking of getting the 3950X as I'm on an 8700K right now and I do some video editing and some gaming so it's been "fine", but more is better.... I'm looking at these AMD prices and going from the 3950X to the 3960X Threadripper isn't much of a financial jump, but then I'm looking at that nice sounding round number of 32 for just a bit more cash and you're at the 3970X.... Something about 16 cores sounds nice, 24 cores is just odd, but 32 cores just rolls off the fingertips....

As long as I can game at 1080P w/ my VEGA 64 flawlessly I'm sure all those chips will do the job (unless I'm missing something..) but is there any reason (besides added cost) not to go w/ the 32 core Threadripper 3970X??

 

[wingman99]

The 32 core Threadripper 3970X does sound sweet compared to Intel. Go for 3970X.

 

[DaveB]

You talk about overkill - 32C/64T and 72 PCIe lanes all to do "some video editing" while running a single Vega 64 GPU gaming at 1080p.

 

[EarthDog]

You talk about overkill - 32C/64T and 72 PCIe lanes all to do "some video editing" while running a single Vega 64 GPU gaming at 1080p.

My thoughts exactly. I just posted it's a good platform if you can utilize (not use) it. Multi GPU, multi high speed m.2 nvme's, and all the cores and threads.

For the use, it feels like the 3950x is almost overkill, or at least a good compromise. On that platform you can still run dual gpu, dual nvme m.2, and have an obnoxious 16c/32t. I also vaguely recall TR cpus holding gaming back compared to its non HEDT counterparts.... if you're gaming at 1080p with a quick card like V64, I'd want the 3950x versus TR.... maybe TR3 solved those issues, but only benchmarks will tell us.

 

[wingman99]

OP what is your 1920x1080p refresh rate Hz? I would go with 3950x if your monitor is 120-144Hz.

 

[Railgun]

Personally, I flip flop. Not that there's been a lot of leap frogging as of late; my last AMD platform was during the Athlon X2 days. Whenever I'm due an upgrade, whoever has the best platform and performance gets my $.

As I'm still on a 5960X, it's definitely time for an upgrade, and the core needs to be replaced anyway so a platform change is a moot point. Everyone has their reasons for choosing this over that. At the moment, while it's possible that AMD might not have every performance metric securely in their corner with the new generations (to be seen) the platform is a strong case; early adoption be dammed.

I do a lot of photo editing. Some video. Some gaming. I have a DAS, so forward looking storage performance is always a plus.

8 cores humming along at about 4.2GHz have served me well, but it's definitely showing its age now. Double that core/thread count on a significantly better IPC will be great, and it's a hard sell if the 10980 is only marginally better, or worse, on par given the platform benefits. The new TRs may be an option, but again, we'll see how they actually perform.

I'll probably never game at high resolutions as I usually go for IPS monitors (still have an old U2711, which too is starting to show its age) and most higher refresh rate IPS monitors don't quite have the color acuity I want.

All that said, proof's in the pudding. We'll see what these tests yield in the coming weeks.

 

[Woomack]

OP what is your 1920x1080p refresh rate Hz? I would go with 3950x if your monitor is 120-144Hz.

Really it doesn't matter as every 6+ core chip will perform about the same in most games and I haven't seen any title that can scale well above 6 cores at lower screen resolution with 1 GPU. Lower chips will keep higher turbo while their max clock is slightly lower. Higher chips will have a lower clock on all cores but higher for single threads (unless you set it manually). The average will be +/-100MHz. Most DX11/12 games use mostly gfx card so the CPU doesn't really matter. In games at lower screen res, the 8700K which OP has will be better than any AMD.

If we talk about 12 core+ chips then all I have on my mind is "I need a new toy". No one needs these CPUs for gaming. If someone said that needs more cores for work, rendering or anything like that then I could agree but not for gaming.

 

[MaddMutt]

If you are looking to play with OCing, the Intel might be more fun. I was debating on getting the i9-10900x but got a i9-7900x instead

 

[Woomack]

If you are looking to play with OCing, the Intel might be more fun. I was debating on getting the i9-10900x but got a i9-7900x instead

Both options seem about the same. Both will OC at all cores lower than the max turbo (unless you use LN2). AMD is probably more interesting as Intel is just refreshing the same stuff for years. AMD is a totally new architecture and has many options to play. Overclocking will be disappointing in both cases. If you are not playing with memory and other things like that then the fun will last one evening.

 

[EarthDog]

Really it doesn't matter as every 6+ core chip will perform about the same in most games and I haven't seen any title that can scale well above 6 cores at lower screen resolution with 1 GPU. Lower chips will keep higher turbo while their max clock is slightly lower. Higher chips will have a lower clock on all cores but higher for single threads (unless you set it manually). The average will be +/-100MHz. Most DX11/12 games use mostly gfx card so the CPU doesn't really matter. In games at lower screen res, the 8700K which OP has will be better than any AMD.

If we talk about 12 core+ chips then all I have on my mind is "I need a new toy". No one needs these CPUs for gaming. If someone said that needs more cores for work, rendering or anything like that then I could agree but not for gaming.

Correct. Our point was that TR and its more cores and cache structure doesn't help gaming, it hurts in most cases. He suggested the 3950x as it isn't TR and has the increased cache size/new arch and is better for gaming (and part of the list he mentioned in the first post).

I still find Intel to be more satisfying when overclocking. Sure, it's easier, but from base to all core, it overclocks more MHz wise and % over base. With AMD you are looking at nearly all chips topping out at 4.2 GHz give or take, but with Intel, that value is a lot higher (provided you have the cooling). Neither can seem to get past their single core boost. But you still get MOAR MHz off Intel.

 

[wingman99]

Really it doesn't matter as every 6+ core chip will perform about the same in most games and I haven't seen any title that can scale well above 6 cores at lower screen resolution with 1 GPU. Lower chips will keep higher turbo while their max clock is slightly lower. Higher chips will have a lower clock on all cores but higher for single threads (unless you set it manually). The average will be +/-100MHz. Most DX11/12 games use mostly gfx card so the CPU doesn't really matter. In games at lower screen res, the 8700K which OP has will be better than any AMD.

If we talk about 12 core+ chips then all I have on my mind is "I need a new toy". No one needs these CPUs for gaming. If someone said that needs more cores for work, rendering or anything like that then I could agree but not for gaming.

For high 144 FPS with 144Hz monitor it does mater if the OP will go with 3950x that has a higher clock speed and IPC than the Threadripper 3970X that does not do as well in high FPS games.

 

[EarthDog]

For high 144 FPS with 144Hz monitor it does mater if he will go with 3950x that has a higher clock speed and IPC than the Threadripper 3970X that does not do as well in high FPS games.

Have we seen the results of the new TRs IPC and gaming performance already (that isn't a rumor)? Links!

IPC should be the same as the non HEDT parts as per usual. I'm wondering if its cache structure changed (and w/e else was holding it back) and now doesn't hurt gaming. 120Hz+ or not, the non HEDT part from AMD is the choice until we see official benchmarks.

 

[Railgun]

Considering the entire architecture changed, again...proof's in the pudding.

 

[DaPoets]

Here are some gaming benchmarks for the TR 3960X https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-ryzen-threadripper-3960x-3dmark-benchmark-results
The TLDR is that the TR 3960X in Time Spy and Time Spy Extreme outperforms th i9-9980XE, the Ryzen 9 3900X, AND the 9900KS. It even outperforms the i9-9900KS in Fire Strike. (these are Physics scores)

In my OP I did mention that basically I wanted to ensure 1080P gaming would be fine as the old TR line did have gaming issues (I have 2 27in 75Hz ASUS monitors) and I say that because as I don't consider myself a gamer anymore compared to how I used to game in the past, I still like to play BFV and other random titles a couple of times a week. I will be doing more things like transcoding in PLEX, editing videos for youtube to promote my Registered Investment Advisory firm when I'm recording 4K video from my Note 10+ 5G phone (baby steps), and then streaming PLEX sometimes while gaming. I hope this added info gets the conversation a bit back on track as gaming isn't my focus but it is the low bar minimum. Based on these results in 3DMark for the 3960X I'm sure the 3970X will be in the same general ball park.

And my custom water cooling loop is all ready for this too, having 2 360 rads and a 480 rad, gaming last night on Battlefield V for 30 min my water temps went from 30c on idle to 33c which blew my mind (installed new rads a few days ago).

Thanks for all the replies fam!

 

[EarthDog]

The Physics scores are nothing but a multi-threaded benchmark, bud... it doesn't tell anything about gaming performance.

Even with the added information and framing, I still think a 3950x is the right choice for you..............that is until we see some actual gaming benchmarks from the new TR. That said, I doubt it will be a lot different, and though there will be a glass ceiling on FPS at 1080p due to lower clocks, it won't be bad performance at all.

 

[DaPoets]

Well there is a difference between "the right choice" and just getting something due to enthusiasm. That's basically what my decision is and I wanted to make sure that TR 3970X would still be great for gaming as it will crush anything else I throw at it. It looks like I have my answer and it will be just perfectly fine for gaming. If say Battlefield 5 on a 9900KS is 150 FPS and the TR 3970X is 140 FPS (making up numbers) then I really don't care since I'm running 75hz monitors anyway. As long as I can't tell any difference then I'm good.

 

[wingman99]

Well there is a difference between "the right choice" and just getting something due to enthusiasm. That's basically what my decision is and I wanted to make sure that TR 3970X would still be great for gaming as it will crush anything else I throw at it. It looks like I have my answer and it will be just perfectly fine for gaming. If say Battlefield 5 on a 9900KS is 150 FPS and the TR 3970X is 140 FPS (making up numbers) then I really don't care since I'm running 75hz monitors anyway. As long as I can't tell any difference then I'm good.

LOL I can see your not worried about gaming performance now with 75hz monitor. Sounds like a good plan to have fun with a new product.

 

[Railgun]

Check out the Anand review for the 3950X

...among others.

 

[Railgun]

So maybe you have your answer now? I sure know I do.

 

[DaPoets]

So maybe you have your answer now? I sure know I do.

I'm going w/ the 3960X as the added cost for the 3970X doesn't scale to make it worth it (for me).