www.tomshardware.com
Probably no 3900 at this time because they were using the bin stock on initial stock for these OEM orders. So getting the 3900 will probably wait till 2 things happen. 1. That the follow-up orders are smaller and 2 the demand for the 3900x slows and they can use the 3900 to recapture sales and interest with a product tiered above the 3800x.
Are you sure? 65W for two chiplets running at 3.1 GHz does call for not so bad quality. If I remember correctly, somebody simulated 3900 using
forums.anandtech.com
In some ways what the x products outside the 3700x use are worse bins. But they are particular bins, ones that leak a lot, they can end up using more power at any given level, but can take more power to clock higher. I am thinking and I am sure jpiniero was getting at is the the 3900 dies are probably closer to the mean of dies. Not worse then the 3900x dies, just different and probably in a way that is closer to the average of dies that come off the production line. Even as far back as zen, its been noted that the Zen arch is more amazing the less power you send through it. You can see it here. -500MHZ base clock and you can fit 2 cores and an io die within a 65w usage.Are you sure? 65W for two chiplets running at 3.1 GHz does call for not so bad quality. If I remember correctly, somebody simulated 3900 using
3900X running at 3.1 GHz and the power use was around 65W.
This brings back my idea of making 3600x2 with TDP of 95W or even higher, which would be easy and cheap to produce with "ordinary" or "lower quality" chiplets, as I have been arguing for in this thread:
Question - Rethinking AMD consumer CPU lineup in the situation of chiplet scarcity
If we look at the higher end of the consumer CPU lineup by AMD (beginning with Ryzen 3600), and the fact that AMD is unable to deliver a highly clocked 6+6 core CPU and effectively offers no high core count CPU at this point, and the fact that the high quality chiplets are better used in server...
In other threads we toyed with the possibility that the high boost clocks are what caused the scarcity of 3900X as well as delayed 3950X. 3900 has significantly lower boost clocks so if the former assumption holds any truth we ought to see a higher quantity of 3900 than of 3900X.
Besides not wanting to cannibalize 3900x sales while they are selling everything they are making. I do think you have to account for the Lenovo and HP business orders of their Pro CPU. Shipments for those can quickly dwarf all their retail sales. If the 3900 Pro becomes a semi pro CPU darling, shipments to those guys could limit the availability of retail chips.
The fact that we so far only heard about a 3900 Pro, no plain 3900, does indicate that AMD so far doesn't intent it to compete with 3900X in the retail market. May also help pushing more OEM to offer (widely desired exclusive) AMD products.
I thought that one of the BIOS reports or something included both the 3900 and 3900 Pro. Personal guess is that is going to be one of those on the fly things. Have the one chip designation. As long as Pro's are selling laser engrave it as a Pro. Once Pro shipments start to tail off, engrave them with 3900 and ship them out to get them retail packaged.
A CPU like the 3900Pro/3900 is less of a "slower" 3900x but more of a 3900x Nano. Yeah it has clock optimizations, but the 3700x is only really great when left in a unlocked position with cooling equivalent to the 3800x. Limit the power, use 65w cooling, or disable PBO and the compute performance drops. As far as base goes its only 14% lower clocks for 50% more compute power. Again performance isn't free power wise and there are performance trade offs but this CPU isn't going to be for people chasing FPS. You get it because you need the compute power or you need the thread or a combination of that and some ST performance but with limited cooling options (like an HTPC).
My 3700X boosts to 3.9GHz all core doing x265 encoding bone stock without PBO, all in 65W thermal pocket. It's just a guess but I don't think 3900PRO has thermal room to boost much beyond 3.1GHz all core while remaining under 65W. You make a good point for thermally constrained always on machine that mostly sits idle but occasionally needs lots of threads. Unfortunately that's not my case, I'm hammering my 3700X with HEVC bluray encodes, if I'm wrong and if 3900 can boost to 3.5-3.6GHz under HEVC encodes, that might be worth it for me assuming it makes it to retain channels, otherwise I'm stuck with my 3700X.
If you are boosting all core you are out of the thermal pocket 100% absolutely sure. Just checked Anandtechs review anything over 3c under load (and therefore boosted) goes over 65w. Without PBO on the limit is 85w which isn't too bad and the boost numbers for the 3900 will probably have same ceiling (instead of 140w of the 3900x). But the 3.1 and your 3.5 GHz all core base is at the 65w power usage. You are right though, its probably not much over 3.4GHz all core. Not still down a bit on 3.9. But again in the 15ish % range maybe pushing 20% but with 50% more cores. That's a pretty significant increase in compute power for the power usage.
Facebook
Twitter