3900x vs 3950x

[JayR]

1 minute ago, boggy77 said:

might as well get a 2700x then.

Rather not

[Mateyyy]

7 minutes ago, JayR said:

IDK seems like a waste of money like you said the 3950 is a waste so why bother going with the 4000 series

I don't really get what you're trying to say.

You buy what you need. You don't buy a Threadripper if you're just web browsing, or you don't buy a Pentium or an Athlon if you're video editing full-time.

If the 3900X offers all that you need, then just don't upgrade it? Or if you don't even need that, just get a 3700X, or 3600, or 3300X, there are many different options in a product stack for a reason. 

[HenrySalayne]

18 minutes ago, JayR said:

IDK seems like a waste of money like you said the 3950 is a waste so why bother going with the 4000 series

The 3900x and 3950x only differ in the number of cores. The 4000 series is supposed to have an IPC improvement meaning for the same clock speed it will be faster. This will improve the capabilities of the new series especially in single core use scenarios.

If you can't utilize additional cores and the single core performance is your limiting factor, an upgrade to the 4000 series migjt pay off.

[boggy77]

14 minutes ago, JayR said:

Rather not

the point is, as others have said, is you need to figure out what you need. or you need to give us more details if you want us to help you figure out what you need.

sure, more cores/higher frequency is always better. but just because it's better, it doesn't mean it will be useful/worth it for your particular use case.