Are you happy with ryzen 3700x or 3800x?

[maroammar]

 Are you happy with ryzen 3700x or 3800x? had any problems since purchase?

and could you see if it will live with uou for next 5 years ot will die because overheat or something else

 

[Dedayog]

Huh?

 

Ryzen chips are perfectly fine, and based on their track record will last years, if not decades.

 

[Princess Luna]

Intel states their processors could in theory work 24/7 for 15 years if all conditions are good.

 

I'm sure Ryzen is about the same so yeah it will live more than 5 years of normal usage.

[minibois]

People have not had 5 years with those chips, so not really a valid question to ask if people think it will perish within a couple years..

I do have Ryzen 7 1700 and have had it for over 2 years now and it's still going strong. Does what I want rather well (of course there will always be faster.. which could be helpful in video transcoding.. but there is always something faster!!).

 

Personally I don't think I'll upgrade for the next couple years, unless a relative of mine wants to buy a new PC; in that case I could probably sell them my CPU+mobo for a fair price and upgrade myself.

Although if I went for a 3800X, I would probably only get about 30-40% extra performance (and no extra cores.. Which is what I really hoped for - however impossible - in Zen 2).

[maroammar]

thanks alot

i noticed that you use i9 9900k

so you advise me  buy i9 9900k or ryzen 3700x/3800x (donot look at price)

 ineed it for living for 5 years at least

[Origami Cactus]

I have the 3700x and i expect it's lifespan to be 5 years, because of the 1.5V that is going into the cpu constantly. BUT most of the times 7 of the 8 cores are completely shut off, conserving their lifespan. Also under load it is normal 1.3V.

So it is hard to say how long it will last exactly. Maybe they will last over 10 years? It is too early for that. 5 years is guaranteed. 

[Fasauceome]

12 minutes ago, maroammar said:

so you advise me  buy i9 9900k or ryzen 3700x/3800x (donot look at price)

price is really the only factor here, as the performance is almost the same. Unless you're using Adobe and can use the Quicksync advantage of the 9900K, the cheaper processor wins. 

 

also make sure to quote us or we won't see your responses. I assume your question was for @Princess Luna?

[porina]

Quote

With electromigration, there are two solutions. One is to set the frequency and voltage of the processor low enough that over the expected age of the CPU it won’t ever become an issue, as it happens at such a slow rate – alternatively set the voltage high enough that it won’t become an issue over the lifetime. The second solution is to monitor the effect of electromigration as the core is used over months and years, then adjust the voltage upwards to compensate. This requires a greater level of detection and management inside the CPU, and is arguably a more difficult problem.

 

What AMD does in Ryzen 3000 is the second solution. The first solution results in lower-than-ideal performance, and so the second solution allows AMD to ride the voltage/frequency limits of a given core. The upshot of this is that AMD also knows (through TSMC’s reporting) how long each chip or each core is expected to last, and the results in their eyes are very positive, even with a single core getting the majority of the traffic. For users that are worried about this, the question is, do you trust AMD?

https://www.anandtech.com/show/14873/reaching-for-turbo-aligning-perception-with-amds-frequency-metrics-/3

 

While this doesn't directly answer how long a CPU would last, it is indicating that Zen 2 CPUs will have an ageing process where it will require more voltage over time. This implies more power usage over time, and if the cooling isn't up to it, lower boost clocks.

[Princess Luna]

17 minutes ago, maroammar said:

so you advise me  buy i9 9900k or ryzen 3700x/3800x (donot look at price)

If price is 100% not a concern the i9 9900K is a very compelling pick, remember it trade blows with the R9 3900X rather.

 

Sure it depends on what you'll be doing, some fully multi-threaded workloads can benefit more from SMT than HT, and Zen2 has more cache too.

 

Intel has lots of good perks though, Ring Bus hyper-low latency helps on single threaded workloads, stability is always more solid on Intel too but have in mind Zen 2 is about the same nowadays.

 

It's a pick your poison kind of thing, but bottom line yeah if money is not an issue I'd still advise the 9900K over the 3700X... the 3800X doesn't make sense across the board though as it's just an overpriced 3700X with at best 25mhz~50mhz more in frequency if at all.

[MadmanRB]

Well I have the 3600 and Im happy!

As for age Ryzen has seemed to have aged rather gracefully as first gen ryzen works better now then it did upon launch.

I was rocking the Ryzen 7 1700 and the only reason why i got my setup changed is the performance of the 3600 over it in gaming.

I would not be fussed about longevity, use it until it fails if you like!

[Mister Woof]

My 8700k has been at 1.36v and 5ghz for 2 years now with no issues.

 

Pretty sure the AMD will do the same

[Glenwing]

CPUs in general don't really die of old age.

[geo3]

I have one and am happy with it, mostly. The nonexistant overclocking headroom is kind of a bummer. I'll likely replace it next year however, with a Ryzen 4000 series chip.