Why aren't people recommending the 3950x as much as 3900x?

[Moonzy]

Been here for 2 months, havent seen much 3950x recommendation, yet the 3900x has been recommended a lot

why is that? availability? not as great value? or people who needs 16-core would probably be interested in HEDT instead?

[WereCat]

From what I've seen the 3900X is often on sale and about €300 cheaper than 3950X.

That's a huge jump in price for 4 extra cores and that's ignoring the fact that even 3900X is a huge overkill for most people. 

[Guest]

It's decently accepted that the 3900X is "room to grow into" vs the 3950X encroaching upon "you only need this if you contribute to the world" territory.

After all, I'm of the belief that AMD did it as a mainstream halo product, not because they think it was what the world needed. And it more than served its purpose for that.

 

[Br3tt96]

For one the 3950x is $300 more than a 3900x 

[Shimejii]

Most people simply dont need to spend the 700$ on the cpu since they really wont be using it to its fullest potential. 3900x is a just better value 

[Dabombinable]

9 minutes ago, Moonzy said:

Been here for 2 months, havent seen much 3950x recommendation, yet the 3900x has been recommended a lot

why is that? availability? not as great value? or people who needs 16-core would probably be interested in HEDT instead?

The price jump would be why. Plus in some places/stores only the 3900X is available:
https://www.computeralliance.com.au/cpus/!cpu-socket/amd-am4-(3rd-gen)
https://www.pccasegear.com/category/187_2024/cpus/amd-am4-3rd-gen-processors

[Mateyyy]

8 minutes ago, Moonzy said:

or people who needs 16-core would probably be interested in HEDT instead?

Kind of, yeah. I think I've only recommended a build with a 3950X once or twice in the past couple of months.

Generally if someone needs that many threads, they need them for real work, not for gaming and maybe toying around with some 3D editing once in a while, and often seem to have a hefty enough budget to allow for going HEDT.

 

It's a lot more niche than the 3900X, that's for sure. It does make sense, let's say, for someone who's on a "tighter" budget but still needs a workhorse, or someone who does do multithreaded work but also wants to game pretty often. In fact, I think those happen to be the two use cases where I did put together parts lists with the 3950X.

[Moonzy]

6 minutes ago, WereCat said:

From what I've seen the 3900X is often on sale and about €300 cheaper than 3950X.

 

5 minutes ago, Br3tt96 said:

For one the 3950x is $300 more than a 3900x 

 

4 minutes ago, Shimejii said:

Most people simply dont need to spend the 700$ on the cpu since they really wont be using it to its fullest potential. 3900x is a just better value 

 

4 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

The price jump would be why. Plus in some places/stores only the 3900X is available:
https://www.computeralliance.com.au/cpus/!cpu-socket/amd-am4-(3rd-gen)
https://www.pccasegear.com/category/187_2024/cpus/amd-am4-3rd-gen-processors

hmm, I did some math when i was upgrading last year and determined that 3950x is actually a better value if you factor in motherboard and RAM, and other pc part cost into the mix

mobo: tuf x570   $190

RAM: 2x8 3600  $90

3900x + mobo + RAM ~= 730, $60 per core
3950x + mobo + RAM ~= 1030, $64 per core

that's before you factor in other parts cost, which would make the 3950x a better value

but of course, only if you utilise all cores fully, which is very niche.

but yea i get the point now, it's a huge price gap for many, and niche use case

[WereCat]

1 minute ago, Moonzy said:

 

 

 

hmm, I did some math when i was upgrading last year and determined that 3950x is actually a better value if you factor in motherboard and RAM, and other pc part cost into the mix

mobo: tuf x570   $190

RAM: 2x8 3600  $90

3900x + mobo + RAM ~= 730, $60 per core
3950x + mobo + RAM ~= 1030, $64 per core

that's before you factor in other parts cost, which would make the 3950x a better value

but of course, only if you utilise all cores fully, which is very niche.

but yea i get the point now, it's a huge price gap for many, and niche use case

Yeah, I don't like calculating this way as it can be very misleading. 

For example, 3900X or 3950X don't play games any better than 3600X or 3700X. 

If you grab 3700X instead of 3950X you can spend the money instead on a lot better graphics card. 

 

If you stream with x264 or encode videos with Handbrake or FFMPEG, those programs are not multi-threaded that well, the 3950X will perform just marginally better. 

 

I've been streaming R6S at 1080p60 Slow with some custom settings on my 3900X and I still had no issues maintaining well over 100FPS in the game. 

[Moonzy]

1 minute ago, WereCat said:

Yeah, I don't like calculating this way as it can be very misleading. 

agreed, it's not a good way to calculate "value"

since it differs from one use case to another

 

i use all cores 100% 24/7 so i calculated it that way.

 

but the conclusion is it's a niche product for a niche market.

 

i did the same calc for 3990x, wasnt even worth it lol, though i didnt do it for other TR chips hmm...

[Guest]

I figure 450 for 24 threads that games similar to only 8 threads is a gross waste of money in this field.

 

For computation multitasking the 3900x and up really makes sense!

 

Niche market 100% or bragging rights. 

Ooh look cinebench numbers!!

 

But yet looking back, super affordable processing power. I remember when chips like that would be 1000$

[Moonzy]

1 minute ago, ShrimpBrime said:

I remember when chips like that would be 1000$

$1000 would get you a 5960x in 2016, which is 8 core that only scores 3k in R20 before OC, 4k after OC

to think that my dream PC back then was 5960x lol

 

AMD really did bring the value to the table. Now if only Radeon could do the same

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, Moonzy said:

$1000 would get you a 5960x in 2016, which is 8 core that only scores 3k in R20 before OC, 4k after OC

to think that my dream PC back then was 5960x lol

 

AMD really did bring the value to the table. Now if only Radeon could do the same

Eh, the drivers really dont help.

 

Back in the day, you could use 3rd party drivers with your ATI cards. Just too bad we still cant have some variety.

 

Remember the old Omega drivers for ATI?

[Moonzy]

1 minute ago, ShrimpBrime said:

Remember the old Omega drivers for ATI?

not old enough sry :c _{for making you feel old}

 

shrimp right now

Spoiler

 

I'm only into tech during the 780Ti era, well past ATi still being a company on its own

 

that said, I still have an ATi x550 that works

[Guest]

Just now, Moonzy said:

not old enough sry :c _{for making you feel old}

 

shrimp right now

  Reveal hidden contents

 

I'm only into tech during the 780Ti era, well past ATi still being a company on its own

 

that said, I still have an ATi x550 that works

Lol! I look more like Brad Pitt.....

 

Look for omega 3.8.xxx if you ever play with it. Can bench compare it to the ATI drivers.

[Beerzerker]

7 hours ago, Moonzy said:

 

 

 

hmm, I did some math when i was upgrading last year and determined that 3950x is actually a better value if you factor in motherboard and RAM, and other pc part cost into the mix

mobo: tuf x570   $190

RAM: 2x8 3600  $90

3900x + mobo + RAM ~= 730, $60 per core
3950x + mobo + RAM ~= 1030, $64 per core

that's before you factor in other parts cost, which would make the 3950x a better value

but of course, only if you utilise all cores fully, which is very niche.

but yea i get the point now, it's a huge price gap for many, and niche use case

Yeah, the upfront cost just to get it kinda kills the "Need" for one even though it may be a better deal overall.
That's why I haven't bothered to get one, the 3600x I got does well enough for my useage - Good chip TBH.

[Blue4130]

12 hours ago, Moonzy said:

 

 

 

hmm, I did some math when i was upgrading last year and determined that 3950x is actually a better value if you factor in motherboard and RAM, and other pc part cost into the mix

mobo: tuf x570   $190

RAM: 2x8 3600  $903900x + mobo + RAM ~= 730, $60 per core
3950x + mobo + RAM ~= 1030, $64 per core
 

Maybe I am missing something, but how is $4 more per core a better value? 

[Moonzy]

7 minutes ago, Blue4130 said:

Maybe I am missing something, but how is $4 more per core a better value? 

it's not in that case, but if you include more parts, it'll start to go down more than the 3900x

 

ie, + $100 case + $80 PSU

3900x: 730+180 = 910, $76 per core

3950x: 1030+180 = 1210, $75 per core

 

that was a bad example for what i was saying, but i guess it was fine since it was only to demonstrate my point to get it across

[Blue4130]

24 minutes ago, Moonzy said:

it's not in that case, but if you include more parts, it'll start to go down more than the 3900x

 

ie, + $100 case + $80 PSU

3900x: 730+180 = 910, $76 per core

3950x: 1030+180 = 1210, $75 per core

 

that was a bad example for what i was saying, but i guess it was fine since it was only to demonstrate my point to get it across

But you need those parts for the 3900x also. They should not deviate between the two systems. 

[TomvanWijnen]

8 minutes ago, Blue4130 said:

But you need those parts for the 3900x also. They should not deviate between the two systems. 

What think they mean is that, say you had 10 cores for 500$ or 20 cores for 1000$. If the rest of your system is 500$ either way, your total costs will be 1000$ or 1500$, so 100$ per core vs 75$ per core. In dollar per core value, the 20 core variant is much better. Whether you need those cores or not, then becomes an interesting question.

[Moonzy]

13 minutes ago, Blue4130 said:

But you need those parts for the 3900x also. They should not deviate between the two systems. 

but your performance is based on whole system setup.

a cpu cant run anything on it's own

 

a single core CPU may cost $20 and be a good value, but to use it you'll need the rest of the computer, which will bring the overall performance value of the PC way down, compared to if you used a 10 core cpu.

[Blue4130]

13 minutes ago, Moonzy said:

but your performance is based on whole system setup.

a cpu cant run anything on it's own

 

a single core CPU may cost $20 and be a good value, but to use it you'll need the rest of the computer, which will bring the overall performance value of the PC way down, compared to if you used a 10 core cpu.

OK, i am following your math now.