who would need 3950x over 3900x? realistically

[Windows95]

what's the point? 3900x is already a killer

[star_pilot475]

1 minute ago, Windows95 said:

what's the point? 3900x is already a killer

because they can...

[IDKFA]

By that logic what is the point in the 3900x over the 3800x? 

Likely they will overclock to the same frequency. And with the new consols being 8 core, very likely games for the next 6+ years will be coded for 8 cores. 
So what is the point buying a 3900x, 3800x is already a killer? 

[GoldenLag]

its because they can. it also makes the hill intel needs to climb a lot taller. 

 

 

its mostly for streamers, people who want the best and hobby workstations. 

[star_pilot475]

1 minute ago, IDKFA said:

By that logic what is the point in the 3900x over the 3800x? 

Likely they will overclock to the same frequency. And with the new consols being 8 core, very likely games for the next 6+ years will be coded for 8 cores. 
So what is the point buying a 3900x, 3800x is already a killer? 

Because they can...

[Sauron]

4 minutes ago, Windows95 said:

what's the point? 3900x is already a killer

Someone who would have otherwise needed to get a more expensive threadripper or an even more expensive i9.

2 minutes ago, IDKFA said:

By that logic what is the point in the 3900x over the 3800x? 

Likely they will overclock to the same frequency. And with the new consols being 8 core, very likely games for the next 6+ years will be coded for 8 cores. 
So what is the point buying a 3900x, 3800x is already a killer? 

Current consoles also have 8 cores

[.Apex.]

6 minutes ago, Windows95 said:

what's the point? 3900x is already a killer

not everything you do on a computer is gaming you know

[IDKFA]

4 minutes ago, Sauron said:

 

Current consoles also have 8 cores

yes. that's not really relevant to my point. I'm looking forwards to the future. I don't see game devs coding for more than 8 cores because of future console specs. 
Ergo I would think there is no point getting the 3900x or 3950x for a "gamer". 

[Sauron]

1 minute ago, IDKFA said:

yes. that's not really relevant to my point. I'm looking forwards to the future. I don't see game devs coding for more than 8 cores because of future console specs. 
Ergo I would think there is no point getting the 3900x or 3950x for a "gamer". 

Probably - but you do realize games aren't the only possible use for a computer, right...?

[phongle123]

I understand your perspective. This was the EXACT same for Threadripper 2000. Why buy the 2970WX when you can buy the 2990WX? I think the whole 3950X being released 2 months later is to mitigate the situation. This forces people itching to upgrade having to buy the 12 core if they don't want to wait another 2 months. If it was the other way around, 3950x in July then 3900X in September then there would be no point to the 12 core. Except for people specifically following a price-point and specifically looking for a 12 core.

[Windows95]

14 minutes ago, IDKFA said:

By that logic what is the point in the 3900x over the 3800x? 

Likely they will overclock to the same frequency. And with the new consols being 8 core, very likely games for the next 6+ years will be coded for 8 cores. 
So what is the point buying a 3900x, 3800x is already a killer? 

4 more cores for 100 bucks

[Windows95]

11 minutes ago, _Syn_ said:

not everything you do on a computer is gaming you know

i do music video editing and animation and i dont see why i should spend 800€ on the cpu

[IDKFA]

1 minute ago, Windows95 said:

4 more cores for 100 bucks

so you've just answered your own question??!?

[Windows95]

Just now, IDKFA said:

so you've just answered your own question??!?

no

 

i would buy 3950x if it was 599$

[.Apex.]

Just now, Windows95 said:

i do music video editing and animation and i dont see why i should spend 800€ on the cpu

Then you know exactly in what ways a 16 core would benefit you, maybe you don't need that CPU, doesn't mean no one will

[GoldenLag]

2 minutes ago, Windows95 said:

no

 

i would buy 3950x if it was 599$

then there is the 1950x for you i guess......

[IDKFA]

Lol. Im so lost. 

You asked. why get a 16 core when a 12 core exists
I said. by that logic why get a 12 core when an 8 core exists. 

You said.... "Because it has 4 more cores". LOL

You see what you did there? 

[Windows95]

4 minutes ago, IDKFA said:

Lol. Im so lost. 

You asked. why get a 16 core when a 12 core exists
I said. by that logic why get a 12 core when an 8 core exists. 

You said.... "Because it has 4 more cores". LOL

You see what you did there? 

because its only 100 more bucks for 4 more cores, its a steal

 

300 more bucks for another 4 cores, not so much

 

[Windows95]

9 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

then there is the 1950x for you i guess......

low clocks

[Princess Luna]

14 minutes ago, Windows95 said:

i do music video editing and animation and i dont see why i should spend 800€ on the cpu

Then don't.

[GoldenLag]

1 minute ago, Windows95 said:

low clocks

4ghz isnt half bad. 

 

and if you dont need 16 cores, why not buy something else

[Windows95]

Just now, GoldenLag said:

4ghz isnt half bad. 

 

and if you dont need 16 cores, why not buy something else

3900x is a sweet spot between clock speed core count and price

 

cant beat it

[GoldenLag]

3 minutes ago, Windows95 said:

3900x is a sweet spot between clock speed core count and price

 

cant beat it

then get that.........

 

 

[Windows95]

1 minute ago, GoldenLag said:

then get that.........

 

then get that.......

i will

 

i will

[GoldenLag]

Just now, Windows95 said:

i will

 

i will

yes

 

yes