Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Origami Cactus

(16core added)AMD 3000 specs! 4.7 GHZ, R9 3950x, R7 3700x, 3800x.

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Trixanity said:

I really do wish they'd use this to get Zen 2 APUs out the door faster with a Navi chiplet in place of a second CCD

If they do that, they'd integrate the GPU into the I/O Die.

And remember, APUs traditionally have half the PCIe Lanes of the CPUs in total.

The CPUs have 32 Lanes, of wich 20+4 are usable, the APUs only have 16 Lanes, 4 for the chipset and for compatibility reasons 4 for NVME (or 2PCie + 2SATA)...


And make that a bit bigger and add the CPU Die next to it.

 

But maybe the APU will be Monolithic as it has to be cheap...


"Hell is full of good meanings, but Heaven is full of good works"

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Stefan Payne said:

If they do that, they'd integrate the GPU into the I/O Die.

And remember, APUs traditionally have half the PCIe Lanes of the CPUs in total.

The CPUs have 32 Lanes, of wich 20+4 are usable, the APUs only have 16 Lanes, 4 for the chipset and for compatibility reasons 4 for NVME (or 2PCie + 2SATA)...


And make that a bit bigger and add the CPU Die next to it.

 

But maybe the APU will be Monolithic as it has to be cheap...

problem is that 4 cores will be too little for an new apu, they need more than that at the very least 6 cores, and they dont really have a good way of doing that without going directly to 8 cores, adding a gpu next to it on the same die would be too expensive, keeping it in chiplets is much better, then all they need is a new io die which by now 14nm is cheap,

for the gpu die they can use the smaller discreet gpu they will make as long as they prepare for it,

the pcie limitation is a silly limitation hopefully this time it will have the full 32 lanes 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, cj09beira said:

problem is that 4 cores will be too little for an new apu, they need more than that at the very least 6 cores, and they dont really have a good way of doing that without going directly to 8 cores, adding a gpu next to it on the same die would be too expensive, keeping it in chiplets is much better, then all they need is a new io die which by now 14nm is cheap,

for the gpu die they can use the smaller discreet gpu they will make as long as they prepare for it,

the pcie limitation is a silly limitation hopefully this time it will have the full 32 lanes 

Problem:
That would be way too expensive to manufacture...

 

But lets wait and see how Renoir really looks like. And if it has more than 4 Cores..


"Hell is full of good meanings, but Heaven is full of good works"

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

If they do that, they'd integrate the GPU into the I/O Die.

And remember, APUs traditionally have half the PCIe Lanes of the CPUs in total.

The CPUs have 32 Lanes, of wich 20+4 are usable, the APUs only have 16 Lanes, 4 for the chipset and for compatibility reasons 4 for NVME (or 2PCie + 2SATA)...


And make that a bit bigger and add the CPU Die next to it.

 

But maybe the APU will be Monolithic as it has to be cheap...

The problem I see with integrating it into the IO die is the process node. Until they use some packaging technology to use different nodes at once it would be problematic unless they intend to go forward with a 7nm IO+graphics die.

 

Isn't the APU lane problem somewhat artificial to reduce complexity and/or area? I haven't seen someone ever fully explain why the lanes are cut in half for APUs.

 

Personally I would still bet on monolithic for this generation. I could imagine them trying to go full chiplet in the next generation or the one after.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Trixanity said:

Now that I look at it perhaps it's because of the data fabric between the IOD and CCD. If I understand it correctly, the double width enables it to have a 64B/cycle link to the data fabric from the IO hub and then 32B/cycle link to each CCD. The single CCD packages will not get an extra data fabric link so as to keep it even between single and double CCD packages. So basically the double width facilitates double CCD packages with no cost to bandwidth. So that's how you get 16 cores on AM4 with two chiplets with plenty bandwidth. However the bandwidth should still be higher through better memory support but not double in that sense (depending on how you look at it). We'll see how it translates to real world performance in the reviews.

The IO part doesn't really worry me. 16+4+4x 4.0 PCIe lanes is ball park 48GB/s if you used it all at once. There's enough bandwidth to IF to cover that even at slow ram speeds. With fast ram (3000+), they could even get away without making that part wider. 

 

My concern remains the bandwidth between chiplets isn't a lot... comparable to accessing ram, which isn't a lot for so many cores. For maximum efficiency you'd probably want to keep workloads local to each chiplet and not cross that barrier if you can help it. Probably wont impact consumer workloads much, but at 12 and 16 cores we're entering new territories in the mainstream area.


Main rig: Asus Maximus VIII Hero, i7-6700k stock, Noctua D14, G.Skill Ripjaws V 3200 2x8GB, Gigabyte GTX 1650, Corsair HX750i, In Win 303 NVIDIA, Samsung SM951 512GB, WD Blue 1TB, HP LP2475W 1200p wide gamut

Gaming system: Asrock Z370 Pro4, i7-8086k stock, Noctua D15, Corsair Vengeance LPX RGB 3000 2x8GB, Gigabyte RTX 2070, Fractal Edison 550W PSU, Corsair 600C, Optane 900p 280GB, Crucial MX200 1TB, Sandisk 960GB, Acer Predator XB241YU 1440p 144Hz G-sync

Ryzen rig: Asrock B450 ITX, R5 3600, Noctua D9L, G.SKill TridentZ 3000C14 2x8GB, Gigabyte RTX 2070, Corsair CX450M, NZXT Manta, WD Green 240GB SSD, LG OLED55B9PLA

VR rig: Asus Z170I Pro Gaming, i7-6700T stock, Scythe Kozuti, Kingston Hyper-X 2666 2x8GB, Zotac 1070 FE, Corsair CX450M, Silverstone SG13, Samsung PM951 256GB, Crucial BX500 1TB, HTC Vive

Gaming laptop: Asus FX503VD, i5-7300HQ, 2x8GB DDR4, GTX 1050, Sandisk 256GB + 480GB SSD

Total CPU heating: i7-8086k, i3-8350k, i7-7920X, 2x i7-6700k, i7-6700T, i5-6600k, i3-6100, i7-5930k, i7-5820k, i7-5775C, i5-5675C, 2x i7-4590, i5-4570S, 2x i3-4150T, E5-2683v3, 2x E5-2650, E5-2667, R7 3700X, R5 3600, R5 2600, R7 1700

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, porina said:

I saw the efficiency bit but didn't see the "faster" bit. Charts seem to show same 32B/cycle as current for IF, which is still a bandwidth concern to me.

 

IF clock used to be half memory frequency. Now (using the default 1:1 ratio), it operates at memory frequency. So 3200Mhz by default. compared to the 1666MHz previously available thats a big uptick, more than double the cycles per second, and IF is bi directional whilst memory access is unidirectional. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CarlBar said:

IF clock used to be half memory frequency. Now (using the default 1:1 ratio), it operates at memory frequency. So 3200Mhz by default. compared to the 1666MHz previously available thats a big uptick, more than double the cycles per second, and IF is bi directional whilst memory access is unidirectional. 

To my understanding IF was and still will be related to the true memory clock, which is half the marketing speed. That hasn't changed, other than now there's an even slower IF mode for those wishing to push ram faster.

 

It is unfortunate that AMD only chose to show how latency scaled with ram speed. It would be interesting to see bandwidth measurements also. 


Main rig: Asus Maximus VIII Hero, i7-6700k stock, Noctua D14, G.Skill Ripjaws V 3200 2x8GB, Gigabyte GTX 1650, Corsair HX750i, In Win 303 NVIDIA, Samsung SM951 512GB, WD Blue 1TB, HP LP2475W 1200p wide gamut

Gaming system: Asrock Z370 Pro4, i7-8086k stock, Noctua D15, Corsair Vengeance LPX RGB 3000 2x8GB, Gigabyte RTX 2070, Fractal Edison 550W PSU, Corsair 600C, Optane 900p 280GB, Crucial MX200 1TB, Sandisk 960GB, Acer Predator XB241YU 1440p 144Hz G-sync

Ryzen rig: Asrock B450 ITX, R5 3600, Noctua D9L, G.SKill TridentZ 3000C14 2x8GB, Gigabyte RTX 2070, Corsair CX450M, NZXT Manta, WD Green 240GB SSD, LG OLED55B9PLA

VR rig: Asus Z170I Pro Gaming, i7-6700T stock, Scythe Kozuti, Kingston Hyper-X 2666 2x8GB, Zotac 1070 FE, Corsair CX450M, Silverstone SG13, Samsung PM951 256GB, Crucial BX500 1TB, HTC Vive

Gaming laptop: Asus FX503VD, i5-7300HQ, 2x8GB DDR4, GTX 1050, Sandisk 256GB + 480GB SSD

Total CPU heating: i7-8086k, i3-8350k, i7-7920X, 2x i7-6700k, i7-6700T, i5-6600k, i3-6100, i7-5930k, i7-5820k, i7-5775C, i5-5675C, 2x i7-4590, i5-4570S, 2x i3-4150T, E5-2683v3, 2x E5-2650, E5-2667, R7 3700X, R5 3600, R5 2600, R7 1700

Link to post
Share on other sites

AMD Ryzen 9 3950X (16-Core) Beats $2,000 Intel Core i9-9980XE (18-Core) In Geekbench Test:

Quote

 

aHR0cDovL21lZGlhLmJlc3RvZm1pY3JvLmNvbS9KL0QvH.jpg.733d583e7bc3edc69758c91cd91f778d.jpg

 

A PC said to be using the yet to be released 16-core32-thread AMD Ryzen 9 3950X CPU appears to beat the 18-core, 36-thread Intel Core i9-9980XE in multi-core performance in a leaked Geekbench test result. Perhaps the craziest part about this is that Intel’s 18-core CPU sells for about $2,000, while AMD’s 3950X will be less than half of that at $750. The results show the AMD chip besting the Intel one in single-core score (5,868 vs. 5,395). But it's the 3950X's multi-core score (61,072) that's especially impressive, with a 31% advantage over the i9-9980XE, which scores (on average) only 46,618 points, according to Geekbench.

 

Granted, we don’t know the full story here and under which conditions the AMD CPU was tested. Geekbench shows the chip as having a 3.3 GHz base clock speed and a 4.3 GHz turbo clock speed, which may point to this chip being an engineering sample. That means that the Ryzen 9 3950X could show even better performance in the fall, as AMD advertised a 3.5-GHz base clock speed and a 4.7-GHz boosted clock speed for the chip. Current Geekbench results put the Intel Core i9- 9900K above the AMD 3950X in single-thread performance (6,209 vs. 5,868), but if the AMD chip truly ran at 4.3 GHz turbo clock speed in the test, then it could reach around 6,400 points in the fall at 4.7 GHz.

 

Source: https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-ryzen-3950x-vs-intel-i9-9980xe-geekbench,39640.html

 

Looking pretty good there Team Red! 👍

 

Still though, wait for independent reviews:

Also, something very interesting that was pointed out by Robert Hallock:

Quote

 

 

j4w3wywu9y331.png.7768a5b70064720d13a7c511ac1fd44b.png

 

 


                                                                                                                              .:. Y Gwir Yn Erbyn Y Byd ! .:.

                                                                                                                                     ] Vittoria, o moriamo tutti ! [

                                                         

Spoiler

                                                                            How to free up space on your SSD                                                          

Spoiler
Spoiler

                                                                                          Kymatica Revision:

 

CPU: Intel Core i7-2600k @ 4.3GHz Motherboard: ASRock Z68 Extreme4 Gen3 GPU: Gigabyte GeForce GTX 1660 Ti ~ TU116-400-A1 ~ OC 6G 2x Windforce Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws X Series 16GB @ 2133MHz @ 9-10-11-28 SSD: Crucial M500 240GB (OS/Programs/Path of Exile/Grim Dawn) HDD1: WD 1TB Blue (Diablo III/Other Games/Storage/Media) HDD2: Seagate Barracuda 7.2K 500GB (Backup) HDD3: WD Caviar 7.2K 500GB (Backup) HDD4: WD Elements 4TB External WDBWLG0040HBK-NESN (Backup/Additional Storage)  CPU Cooling: Corsair Hydro Series H100 in Pull (w/ 2x Delta FFB1212EH 120mm) Case Fans: Noctua NF F12 industrialPPC-2000 (x3 120mm) PSU: Seasonic X-Series X-1050 1050W Case: Cooler Master HAF 922 Monitor: Samsung C27F396 Curved 27-Inch Freesync Monitor (@ 1440p @ 72Hz) Keyboard: Cooler Master Storm Trigger-Z (Cherry MX Brown Switches) Mouse: Roccat Kone XTD Mousepad: Corsair MM350 Premium Audio: Logitech X-530 5.1 Speaker System Headset: Corsair VOID Stereo Gaming Headset (w/ Sennheiser 3D G4ME 7.1 Surround Amplifier) OS: Windows 10 Professional (Version 1903 OS Build 18362.592)

 

                                                                                                       

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/11/2019 at 1:16 PM, leadeater said:

 

 

To Infinity and Beyond!

 

So the IF is still referenced to the memory clock but the ratio is adjustable.

 

TravisK_DonW-Next_Horizon_Gaming-Ryzen_D

 

Source: https://www.anandtech.com/show/14525/amd-zen-2-microarchitecture-analysis-ryzen-3000-and-epyc-rome (happy reading as there is WAY more information than I posted).

With previous generations IF speed was 1/2 of the RAM speed. So if I had 2933MHz RAM, IF speed was about half of that, so just under 1500.

If I understand that correctly, Zen2 will double the IF speed in the same scenario? So If I keep using 2933MHz ram, IF speed will also be 2933?


Intel i5 8600k 5.0GHz | EVGA Z370 Micro ATX | Dark Rock 3 | ADATA XPG Z1 3000MHz 32GB | RM650x | GTX 1080 Ti EVGA SC2 | Thermaltake Core V21

Samsung EVO 960 M.2 250GB | Samsung EVO 850 250GB | HyperX Fury 480GB | 3x Be Quiet! Silent Wings 140mm fans

WD My Cloud 4TB

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Simon771 said:

With previous generations IF speed was 1/2 of the RAM speed. So if I had 2933MHz RAM, IF speed was about half of that, so just under 1500.

If I understand that correctly, Zen2 will double the IF speed in the same scenario? So If I keep using 2933MHz ram, IF speed will also be 2933?

99% sure it's the same as I assume it follows the principle of the actual RAM frequency. The example you give at 2933 MHz is the advertised speed due to it being DDR or Double Data Rate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Trixanity said:

99% sure it's the same as I assume it follows the principle of the actual RAM frequency. The example you give at 2933 MHz is the advertised speed due to it being DDR or Double Data Rate.

Think that is correct, the IF bus got wider. When they come out we'll actually know so waiting game really.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Trixanity said:

99% sure it's the same as I assume it follows the principle of the actual RAM frequency. The example you give at 2933 MHz is the advertised speed due to it being DDR or Double Data Rate.

 

6 hours ago, leadeater said:

Think that is correct, the IF bus got wider. When they come out we'll actually know so waiting game really.

I was reading this article about Infinity Fabric: https://www.anandtech.com/show/14525/amd-zen-2-microarchitecture-analysis-ryzen-3000-and-epyc-rome/11

Guess I misunderstood those speeds ... could it be because I was hoping for 2x faster link between CCX chips, that could potentially lead to better performance in BDO, without having to disable some cores/threads. Then again we are less than a month away from release date, when all information will be available to us :)

 


Intel i5 8600k 5.0GHz | EVGA Z370 Micro ATX | Dark Rock 3 | ADATA XPG Z1 3000MHz 32GB | RM650x | GTX 1080 Ti EVGA SC2 | Thermaltake Core V21

Samsung EVO 960 M.2 250GB | Samsung EVO 850 250GB | HyperX Fury 480GB | 3x Be Quiet! Silent Wings 140mm fans

WD My Cloud 4TB

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Simon771 said:

 

I was reading this article about Infinity Fabric: https://www.anandtech.com/show/14525/amd-zen-2-microarchitecture-analysis-ryzen-3000-and-epyc-rome/11

Guess I misunderstood those speeds ... could it be because I was hoping for 2x faster link between CCX chips, that could potentially lead to better performance in BDO, without having to disable some cores/threads. Then again we are less than a month away from release date, when all information will be available to us :)

 

CCXs are contained within a chiplet (two CCXs within one CCD and either one or two CCDs per package along with an IOD). The latest Windows update will prioritize scheduling to each CCX instead of 'randomly' assigning it. Combined with better latency overall, better memory support (resulting in faster IF speeds) and clock speed. It should perform much more consistently and overall better regardless of what you wanna do. 

 

I'm not sure how much doubling IF speed would help performance deficiencies caused by cross-CCX communication. There appears to be some diminishing returns at least unless I'm mistaken.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/27/2019 at 1:41 AM, Drak3 said:

AMD's mythical 16 core

Image result for troll face

 


System
CPU:Ryzen 3 2200G, Motherboard:ASUS Prime X470-Pro, RAM:G.SKILL TridentZ RGB Series 16GB (2 x 8GB), GPU:EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 SC GAMING,Case:Corsair - SPEC-02, Storage:Seagate - Barracuda 3TB 3.5" 7200RPM / Crucial - MX500 250GB 2.5", PSU:EVGA - BT 450W 80+ Bronze, Display:

VIOTEK GN32DB 32-Inch Curved Gaming Monitor, Cooling:Wraith Stealth Cooler,Keyboard:Logitech Desktop MK120, Mouse:Logitech Desktop MK120, Sound:Logitech Z313 Speaker System, Operating System:Windows 10 Pro 64bit

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/11/2019 at 11:39 PM, porina said:

To my understanding IF was and still will be related to the true memory clock, which is half the marketing speed. That hasn't changed, other than now there's an even slower IF mode for those wishing to push ram faster.

 

It is unfortunate that AMD only chose to show how latency scaled with ram speed. It would be interesting to see bandwidth measurements also. 

 

On my phone so I can't dig up links but and talked about it when they announced EPYC back at the end of last year. They specifically said IF frequency was equal to mem speed instead of half mem speed as previous.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

On my phone so I can't dig up links but and talked about it when they announced EPYC back at the end of last year. They specifically said IF frequency was equal to mem speed instead of half mem speed as previous.

That would be nice and take away some of my concerns if confirmed. In particular it would make the ram bandwidth make more sense at the lower speed, but then the bandwidth to the PCIe part would be excessive. I might try a search myself later. 


Main rig: Asus Maximus VIII Hero, i7-6700k stock, Noctua D14, G.Skill Ripjaws V 3200 2x8GB, Gigabyte GTX 1650, Corsair HX750i, In Win 303 NVIDIA, Samsung SM951 512GB, WD Blue 1TB, HP LP2475W 1200p wide gamut

Gaming system: Asrock Z370 Pro4, i7-8086k stock, Noctua D15, Corsair Vengeance LPX RGB 3000 2x8GB, Gigabyte RTX 2070, Fractal Edison 550W PSU, Corsair 600C, Optane 900p 280GB, Crucial MX200 1TB, Sandisk 960GB, Acer Predator XB241YU 1440p 144Hz G-sync

Ryzen rig: Asrock B450 ITX, R5 3600, Noctua D9L, G.SKill TridentZ 3000C14 2x8GB, Gigabyte RTX 2070, Corsair CX450M, NZXT Manta, WD Green 240GB SSD, LG OLED55B9PLA

VR rig: Asus Z170I Pro Gaming, i7-6700T stock, Scythe Kozuti, Kingston Hyper-X 2666 2x8GB, Zotac 1070 FE, Corsair CX450M, Silverstone SG13, Samsung PM951 256GB, Crucial BX500 1TB, HTC Vive

Gaming laptop: Asus FX503VD, i5-7300HQ, 2x8GB DDR4, GTX 1050, Sandisk 256GB + 480GB SSD

Total CPU heating: i7-8086k, i3-8350k, i7-7920X, 2x i7-6700k, i7-6700T, i5-6600k, i3-6100, i7-5930k, i7-5820k, i7-5775C, i5-5675C, 2x i7-4590, i5-4570S, 2x i3-4150T, E5-2683v3, 2x E5-2650, E5-2667, R7 3700X, R5 3600, R5 2600, R7 1700

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ruh-Roh Intel:

 

Quote

AMD Ryzen 9 3950X breaks three benchmarking world records. 

 

 

At this E3 event the AMD team used custom BIOS voltage settings and the Ryzen Master tweaking software, plus lashings of LN2, to coax three record breaking scores from the new consumer CPU champ. The scores it achieved and broke world records in were as follows:

  • Cinebench R15: AMD Ryzen 9 3950X @ 5434 points
    Previous holder: Intel Core i9-9960X @ 5320 points
  • Cinebench R20: AMD Ryzen 9 3950X @ 12167 points
    Previous holder: Intel Core i9-7960X @ 10895 points
  • Geekbench 4: AMD Ryzen 9 3950X @ 65499 points
    Previous holder: Intel Core i9-7960X @ 60991points

At the end of its little video clip AMD asserts that the Ryzen 9 3950X delivers the "most performance in a mainstream CPU socket".

 

a4eb0b37-a755-46ce-a29f-8bfe315ffc19.jpg.4aed46e75ff25ab192f6b2d753797142.jpg

 

Source: https://hexus.net/tech/news/cpu/131642-amd-ryzen-9-3950x-breaks-three-benchmarking-world-records/

 

Additional food for thought:

 

ryzen_3000_process_voltage_-100798921-orig.thumb.jpg.65b91a987930e92a58f811e9a51b0489.jpg


                                                                                                                              .:. Y Gwir Yn Erbyn Y Byd ! .:.

                                                                                                                                     ] Vittoria, o moriamo tutti ! [

                                                         

Spoiler

                                                                            How to free up space on your SSD                                                          

Spoiler
Spoiler

                                                                                          Kymatica Revision:

 

CPU: Intel Core i7-2600k @ 4.3GHz Motherboard: ASRock Z68 Extreme4 Gen3 GPU: Gigabyte GeForce GTX 1660 Ti ~ TU116-400-A1 ~ OC 6G 2x Windforce Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws X Series 16GB @ 2133MHz @ 9-10-11-28 SSD: Crucial M500 240GB (OS/Programs/Path of Exile/Grim Dawn) HDD1: WD 1TB Blue (Diablo III/Other Games/Storage/Media) HDD2: Seagate Barracuda 7.2K 500GB (Backup) HDD3: WD Caviar 7.2K 500GB (Backup) HDD4: WD Elements 4TB External WDBWLG0040HBK-NESN (Backup/Additional Storage)  CPU Cooling: Corsair Hydro Series H100 in Pull (w/ 2x Delta FFB1212EH 120mm) Case Fans: Noctua NF F12 industrialPPC-2000 (x3 120mm) PSU: Seasonic X-Series X-1050 1050W Case: Cooler Master HAF 922 Monitor: Samsung C27F396 Curved 27-Inch Freesync Monitor (@ 1440p @ 72Hz) Keyboard: Cooler Master Storm Trigger-Z (Cherry MX Brown Switches) Mouse: Roccat Kone XTD Mousepad: Corsair MM350 Premium Audio: Logitech X-530 5.1 Speaker System Headset: Corsair VOID Stereo Gaming Headset (w/ Sennheiser 3D G4ME 7.1 Surround Amplifier) OS: Windows 10 Professional (Version 1903 OS Build 18362.592)

 

                                                                                                       

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's some mini news that doesn't require its own thread:

 

Apparently a new chipset called X590 has been spotted in a Gigabyte bios. It could be a fully unlocked chipset with 16 chipset lanes with a 15W TDP (for reference X570 has 4 lanes disabled for a reduced TDP).

x590_chipset.png

 

It remains to be seen if it'll be released (the rumored X490 never was) and whether it has other unknown extra features.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Trixanity said:

Apparently a new chipset called X590 has been spotted in a Gigabyte bios. It could be a fully unlocked chipset with 16 chipset lanes with a 15W TDP (for reference X570 has 4 lanes disabled for a reduced TDP).

mmmm doubt it'll get released. if two NVMe sticks require active cooling at the worst case scenario, 3 sticks.....

 

i dunno, gonna have to see the review of ASUS's X570 WS board when the only GPU is populating the chipset X8 socket on the board (hopefully GN or anandtech will catch this. maybe LTT if Linus/Anthony finds this edge case worth exploring for X570 experiments)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, VegetableStu said:

mmmm doubt it'll get released. if two NVMe sticks require active cooling at the worst case scenario, 3 sticks.....

Heh, a chipset with a proper small heatsink would be hilarious.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wanted to add this in:

https://wccftech.com/retailer-leaks-prices-of-amd-ryzen-3000-cpus-x570-motherboards/

 

Gulp. TURN AWAY NOW. $830 for the Xtreme. Yeah..I turned away in disgust too. GamersNexus were talking about $600. I really hope these prices are nonsense, the xtreme will be the best seller for the big boards. Or at least it would be at $600. We're paying $350 more than the x570 creation for basically one difference...no chipset fan. I'm sticking to getting either the aorus master or the msi creation thanks very much, at least at these prices anyways.

 

Is anyone desperate enough to pay more than the 3950x costs just for the lack of a fan? I really like the Xtreme but there is no way in hell I'm paying $800.

 

On the positive side, MSI's flagship seems to be cheaper than expected, with the Godlike around $700 instead of $777. And the x570 creation is a lot more reasonable at just under $500. That's the one I'm most tempted by. Either that or the Aorus Master.

 

And the rumors of x590...I dare to think of what the x590 Xtreme costs...goodness me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MeatFeastMan said:

Just wanted to add this in:

https://wccftech.com/retailer-leaks-prices-of-amd-ryzen-3000-cpus-x570-motherboards/

 

Gulp. TURN AWAY NOW. $830 for the Xtreme. Yeah..I turned away in disgust too. GamersNexus were talking about $600. I really hope these prices are nonsense, the xtreme will be the best seller for the big boards. Or at least it would be at $600. We're paying $350 more than the x570 creation for basically one difference...no chipset fan. I'm sticking to getting either the aorus master or the msi creation thanks very much, at least at these prices anyways.

 

Is anyone desperate enough to pay more than the 3950x costs just for the lack of a fan? I really like the Xtreme but there is no way in hell I'm paying $800.

 

On the positive side, MSI's flagship seems to be cheaper than expected, with the Godlike around $700 instead of $777. And the x570 creation is a lot more reasonable at just under $500. That's the one I'm most tempted by. Either that or the Aorus Master.

 

And the rumors of x590...I dare to think of what the x590 Xtreme costs...goodness me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hold your horse.

A lot of the prices are placeholders.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Trixanity said:

Hold your horse.

A lot of the prices are placeholders.

And you don't have to buy the expensive ones and the quality has gone up over last generation. Same model X570 are quiet different to X470 this time around. It's a more for more situation, as always though few need the high cost boards anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×