AMD Ryzen 3950X on LN2 at only 5.3GHz

[nick name]

Was anyone else just a tad disappointed that the LN2 benchmarks they displayed were only run at 5.3GHz?  Just for quick reference: GamersNexus recent LN2 benchmarking streams were the Ryzen 2700X at 5.6GHz and the Intel 9980XE (18 core) at 5.8GHz.  

 

I'm assuming the 3950X they were using is an early sample, but it still feels kinda lackluster.  

[Raudi_]

6 minutes ago, nick name said:

Was anyone else just a tad disappointed that the LN2 benchmarks they displayed were only run at 5.3GHz?  Just for quick reference: GamersNexus recent LN2 benchmarking streams were the Ryzen 2700X at 5.6GHz and the Intel 9980XE (18 core) at 5.8GHz.  

 

I'm assuming the 3950X they were using is an early sample, but it still feels kinda lackluster.  

16c at 5.3 + Ryzen on ln2 is 10/10

[Sauron]

This is most likely an early sample and they didn't really try to set a world record with this... 5.5k on cinebench r15 is already monstrous.

[Jumper118]

12 minutes ago, nick name said:

Was anyone else just a tad disappointed that the LN2 benchmarks they displayed were only run at 5.3GHz?  Just for quick reference: GamersNexus recent LN2 benchmarking streams were the Ryzen 2700X at 5.6GHz and the Intel 9980XE (18 core) at 5.8GHz.  

 

I'm assuming the 3950X they were using is an early sample, but it still feels kinda lackluster.  

no this is correct. some binned one might get 5.4-5.5 later, but its around the right area. they only do 4.2-4.3ghz on ambient cooling. 

 

the current 16 record was a 9960x at 5.9ghz with 5320 in r15. 

https://hwbot.org/submission/4168151_bigblock990_cinebench___r15_core_i9_9960x_5320_cb

 

but yes i am disappointed. the clocks on the 16 and 12 core wont be great. the 8 core will have the highest clocks all core probably. 

[melete]

Disappointing how, though? Zen+ wasn't matching Intel clockspeeds, and Zen 2 is a die shrink with many additional cores thrown into the mix.

[SenKa]

Thats actually quite good for such a small 16c chip.

[bimmerman]

Not disappointed at all, because I don't care if it won't overclock as high as Intel. Frequency ain't everything. If Zen2 XFR and PBO work as well as they did for Zen+, there isn't much reason to OC in the first place beyond e-points.

[nick name]

25 minutes ago, melete said:

Disappointing how, though? Zen+ wasn't matching Intel clockspeeds, and Zen 2 is a die shrink with many additional cores thrown into the mix.

Disappointing in that a 2700X can get up to 5.6GHz on LN2 while it is starting at slightly slower speeds and that an 18 core 9980XE (granted it's a product of a much more mature process) can get up to 5.8GHz.  And that starts at lower speeds than the 3950X does too.  

 

Of course I'm assuming the CPU isn't a production ready sample and the motherboard is probably not as mature as it eventually will be so I am hopeful of better results in the future -- I guess I wanted to see more today to give better hope to what Ryzen 3000 could do on ambient when it's released.  

 

 

[nick name]

5 minutes ago, bimmerman said:

Not disappointed at all, because I don't care if it won't overclock as high as Intel. Frequency ain't everything. If Zen2 XFR and PBO work as well as they did for Zen+, there isn't much reason to OC in the first place beyond e-points.

Frequency may not be everything, but you can't act like it isn't important.  

[Princess Luna]

39 minutes ago, Jumper118 said:

the clocks on the 16 and 12 core wont be great. the 8 core will have the highest clocks all core probably. 

We will have to see if the 3800X is worth it over the 3700X when factoring free overclocking, I understand for pure gaming the 8 cores SKU are the most senseful, single core performance shouldn't really be better with the higher SKU and the extra multi-threaded capacities really only recommended if you're doing so stupidly intensive multi-tasking WHILE gaming at this point.

 

I'm torn, I have a brand new high end gaming PC planned for this july and I'm still not 100% certain if the i7 9700K is right to ditch yet.

[BigRom]

16 minutes ago, nick name said:

Frequency may not be everything, but you can't act like it isn't important.  

We should be more interested in the benchmark performance than clock speed anyway.

 

If we want clock speed that bad, could always go back to LN2 cooling the FX-8000 series, those got up to 8.xGHz

[Wolrajh]

I'm looking for cores, lots of cores, while not dismissing frequency and obviously IPC, so that announcement was what I waited for - It probably won't beat the 2990wx in raw multithreaded performances but I'm curious to see how it will be faring against the 2xxx threadrippers in term of heavy-duty content creation.

Very early leaks were pitting it against the 2970wx and even beating it, so we'll see if it holds up to those rumours. At any rate, with better frequencies and all the jazz that will come with x570, and obviously the very much lower price, I guess [hope] it should thread that line between gaming rig and workstation very well while I wait for the next Threadripper gen.

 

For pure gaming tho, I have no idea!

 

At any rate my only disappointment is that it won't come before september when I was hoping to upgrade from my 4970k early summer...

[Jurrunio]

More cores = More thermally dense = lower clock. Look at 9900k versus 9980XE, in just sheer frequency 9900k did 7613MHz while 9980XE only did 6859MHz.

[bimmerman]

1 hour ago, nick name said:

Frequency may not be everything, but you can't act like it isn't important.  

It boosts to 4.7 as is, with an all core somewhere between that and 3.5, so likely can overclock all cores to somewhere in between stock all-core boost and stock single core boost. In other words, somewhere likely north of 4 GHz.

 

9900k status, it is not, but does it matter? Not one whit. It's likely better at OCing than Zen+, and that performed just fine.

 

If overclocking is your hobby though, this likely is not the chip for you. If it's a means to an end, then who cares. OC values on H2O or Air, I'd be interested in. LN2....I struggle to see any relevance when I wouldn't be attempting to reach the limits anyway.

[BigRom]

11 minutes ago, bimmerman said:

LN2....I struggle to see any relevance when I wouldn't be attempting to reach the limits anyway.

This.

 

Which normal user in the world keeps a tank full of LN2 beside the PC just to cool their CPU.

[nick name]

2 hours ago, Jurrunio said:

More cores = More thermally dense = lower clock. Look at 9900k versus 9980XE, in just sheer frequency 9900k did 7613MHz while 9980XE only did 6859MHz.

Look at the 9980XE vs the 3950X then.  

[nick name]

1 hour ago, bimmerman said:

It boosts to 4.7 as is, with an all core somewhere between that and 3.5, so likely can overclock all cores to somewhere in between stock all-core boost and stock single core boost. In other words, somewhere likely north of 4 GHz.

 

9900k status, it is not, but does it matter? Not one whit. It's likely better at OCing than Zen+, and that performed just fine.

 

If overclocking is your hobby though, this likely is not the chip for you. If it's a means to an end, then who cares. OC values on H2O or Air, I'd be interested in. LN2....I struggle to see any relevance when I wouldn't be attempting to reach the limits anyway.

It didn't overclock the same as Zen+ if only looking at speed to speed.  Cores excluded.  Hopefully the production chips will though.  

[nick name]

Some many of you guys are crapping on me like I'm hating on the CPU.  Don't try to immediately challenge the premise and understand the question comes from a place of love.  Look at damn signature.  

[nick name]

2 hours ago, Wolrajh said:

I'm looking for cores, lots of cores, while not dismissing frequency and obviously IPC, so that announcement was what I waited for - It probably won't beat the 2990wx in raw multithreaded performances but I'm curious to see how it will be faring against the 2xxx threadrippers in term of heavy-duty content creation.

Very early leaks were pitting it against the 2970wx and even beating it, so we'll see if it holds up to those rumours. At any rate, with better frequencies and all the jazz that will come with x570, and obviously the very much lower price, I guess [hope] it should thread that line between gaming rig and workstation very well while I wait for the next Threadripper gen.

 

For pure gaming tho, I have no idea!

 

At any rate my only disappointment is that it won't come before september when I was hoping to upgrade from my 4970k early summer...

Yeah, that would bum me out too.  

[Stefan Payne]

4 hours ago, nick name said:

Disappointing in that a 2700X can get up to 5.6GHz on LN2 while it is starting at slightly slower speeds and that an 18 core 9980XE (granted it's a product of a much more mature process) can get up to 5.8GHz.  And that starts at lower speeds than the 3950X does too.  

Zen2 has higher "IPC" though and better FPU than Zen1...

And it was only a quick demonstration on a press event.

With unoptimized Motherboards/BIOS and lack of knowledge of the Overclockers.

That might (or might not) increase when they have more experience with the Plattform...

Why not wait and see???

[Jurrunio]

2 hours ago, nick name said:

Look at the 9980XE vs the 3950X then.  

different architecture and manufacturing process, cannot compare frequencies. Without frequency, you can't judge the score.

[nick name]

7 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:

Zen2 has higher "IPC" though and better FPU than Zen1...

And it was only a quick demonstration on a press event.

With unoptimized Motherboards/BIOS and lack of knowledge of the Overclockers.

That might (or might not) increase when they have more experience with the Plattform...

Why not wait and see???

Gonna have to.