Support NeoGAF

[thelastword]

AMD’s Ryzen 9 3900X CPU which currently reigns supreme as the flagship offering of the 3rd Gen Ryzen lineup is facing a severe shortage across the globe and in all major retail outlets. The 12 core chip launched back in July at an introductory price of $499 US but you’d be lucky if you can find it now & for the same price.

The AMD Ryzen 9 3900X launched as the first 12 core processor on any mainstream platform to date. Offering an abundance of cores and threads for multi-tasking users, the chip for only $500 US was an incredible choice for those who wanted the extra core/thread performance at hand. However, since launch, the chip has seen price gouging due to higher demand & surprisingly low supply, something that we were told be our sources prior to launch.

Now three months after the launch of the processor, it faces an incredible shortage throughout the globe. Just going through major retailers, the chip is now selling for $799.99 US on Newegg, $829.99 US on Amazon and $799.99 US (plus $222.03 Additional Costs) on eBay. The chip was selling for a lower price on Micro Center but is no longer available and same is the case with the renowned German retailer, MindFactory, who don’t have the chip available anymore. There’s also a 1-2 week shipping delay depending on the retailer you get the product from.

https://www.newegg.com/p/pl?d=3900x

Out of stock on Amazon, available from third parties for over $700.....

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07SXMZLP9/?tag=neogaf0e-20

OP's Thread Link
https://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-9-3900x-cpu-shortage-800-usd-pricing-major-retailers/

--------------
Now Leonidas told me that, the 3950x was delayed because of clockspeed issues. Something already fixed on Ryzen......What Logic......I posted a thread the other day showing TSMC's struggles with keeping up with the 7nm demand, I clearly highlighted that to be the number 1 issue I saw AMD running into. Not being able to keep up with demand.....The reason why the 3950X was delayed has nothing to do with clocks.......It has everything to do with TSMC not being able to meet the high demand of these AMD chips..........

Thread about TSMC demand issues and 7nm production....
I swear I had a thread on that, looks like it disappeared...Anyway the link to TSMC 7nm production issues are here....

https://wccftech.com/tsmc-7nm-production-lead-time/

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Glad I got my 3900X at launch..........I've been using it all this time and it's performance is incredible..........even with the growing pains........I've very happy with it........TSMC's production issues will severely hurt supply though for consumers especially since most of the good yielding chiplets are going to be heading for EPYC which has much higher profit margins.........

 

[thelastword]

I decided to wait for the 3950X, (Wanted that 4.7GHZ goodness and 16 cores), hopefully things get better for holiday season...…...

 

[Soltype]

I decided to wait for the 3950X, (Wanted that 4.7GHZ goodness and 16 cores), hopefully things get better for holiday season...…...

That's what I'll probably get,don't think I can wait for Intel next year.

 

[HermitSperg691]

Intel still wins in gaming performance.

 

[Chiggs]

Intel still wins in gaming performance.

Outside of a few titles, Intel squeaks by in gaming performance and gets its asshole stomped in in nearly everything else.

 

[LazyParrot]

Intel still wins in gaming performance.

Technically. Chances are though that there will never be a situation in any game where the difference in performance between a 3700x and a 9900K will be huge enough to affect your gameplay experience. I'm sure there are people who absolutely need to play Far Cry 5 at 150 instead of 130 fps at 1080p and are willing to spend an extra 200 bucks over a 3700x to do it, but I'm not one of those people, and neither are 99.99% of PC gamers.

Actually, I'm fairly sure that most of the people still choosing a 9900K over a 3700x don't do it because they actually expect to feel a difference in performance. They do it because they'll be able to say that they bought the fastest CPU. Not that there's anything wrong with that, I suppose.

 

[kraspkibble]

Technically. Chances are though that there will never be a situation in any game where the difference in performance between a 3700x and a 9900K will be huge enough to affect your gameplay experience. I'm sure there are people who absolutely need to play Far Cry 5 at 150 instead of 130 fps at 1080p and are willing to spend an extra 200 bucks over a 3700x to do it, but I'm not one of those people, and neither are 99.99% of PC gamers.

Actually, I'm fairly sure that most of the people still choosing a 9900K over a 3700x don't do it because they actually expect to feel a difference in performance. They do it because they'll be able to say that they bought the fastest CPU. Not that there's anything wrong with that, I suppose.

i'm one of those people. i bought a 9900K because the 3700X i bought gave me nothing but hassle. my system was very unstable crashing constantly (ruled out all other parts so it was definitely the CPU or BIOS issue). also, the 3700X runs really hot (40-50C idle/light usage!) and actually consumes more power than a 9900K. i returned it and said fuck it i'm getting a 9900K. now i still got 8 cores / 16 threads and they all run at 5.1GHz.

not hating on AMD. there are people out there who are very happy with their Ryzen CPUs but it didn't work out for me. The cost of a 9900K/Z390 board vs a 3700X/X570 board was pretty much the same so price isn't an issue. i'm just much happier with my 9900K. it's still a good choice of CPU.

 

[Chiggs]

and actually consumes more power than a 9900K.

Huh?

AMD Ryzen 7 3800X Review: Core i7 Has a New Challenger

We grabbed a Ryzen 7 3800X off a retail shelf to give it a spin in our test lab.

www.tomshardware.com

I mean, I see some examples that support what you're saying. But only some.

 

[metareferential]

3900x out of stock everywhere and basically too expensive, even if it's the go-to recommendation.

Meanwhile you can get a 9900k with bundles and great discounts.

Competition is good xD

 

[CrisPy2019]

Intel buying the CPUs so consumers will buy Intel instead confirmed.

Losing money in exchange for brand loyalty and exposure etc. Good idea I guess.

 

[HermitSperg691]

Outside of a few titles, Intel squeaks by in gaming performance and gets its asshole stomped in in nearly everything else.

Intel surpasses AMD in the only thing that matters to most people which is gaming performance. Other benchmarks don't matter. Not only that, AMD still sucks in single-threaded performance.

 

[Chiggs]

Intel surpasses AMD in the only thing that matters to most people which is gaming performance. Other benchmarks don't matter. Not only that, AMD still sucks in single-threaded performance.

"Children, this is what we call being 'an idiot.'"

 

[Pagusas]

Great to see; competition brings out the best in these two companies. We are in for a good few years of quick improvements and heavy R&D from intel’s side.

 

[grfunkulus]

i'm one of those people. i bought a 9900K because the 3700X i bought gave me nothing but hassle. my system was very unstable crashing constantly (ruled out all other parts so it was definitely the CPU or BIOS issue). also, the 3700X runs really hot (40-50C idle/light usage!) and actually consumes more power than a 9900K. i returned it and said fuck it i'm getting a 9900K. now i still got 8 cores / 16 threads and they all run at 5.1GHz.

not hating on AMD. there are people out there who are very happy with their Ryzen CPUs but it didn't work out for me. The cost of a 9900K/Z390 board vs a 3700X/X570 board was pretty much the same so price isn't an issue. i'm just much happier with my 9900K. it's still a good choice of CPU.

Same but I ended up with the 9700k because it was actually just $300 at microcenter. When it can be had for about the same price as the 3700x, I think it's actually a better value proposition if you're building a gaming only system.

The board wasn't any more expensive for the Intel version (again, possibly because of Microcenter's very attractive pricing), and I was happier getting a noctua nh-u14s for ~$65 price matching Amazon than I would have ever been sticking with the AMD wraith. It's too loud and while it does a decent job cooling, the Intel chip actually runs 15-20 degrees cooler now with the Noctua. If you're not going to be using the box cooler anyway, it's not a value add (I can't be bothered to sell it on eBay and make maybe $30 back either).

Very happy with my purchase. Will the 8 threads become a handicap? Sure. Eventually. But by that time the CPUs will have advanced far enough that I'll want a better one anyway. I think people forget that it took many, many years for 4 cores to become a significant bottleneck in most titles. The next gen consoles are going to be significantly slower, CPU wise, than what a 3700x can do, and there's a 0 percent chance that we see a large percentage of titles fully utilizing more than 8 threads early on.

 

[Dontero]

Intel surpasses AMD in the only thing that matters to most people which is gaming performance. Other benchmarks don't matter. Not only that, AMD still sucks in single-threaded performance.

Single core performance difference is few % range. Aside from very slight single core performance difference it gets mauled in everything else.

 

[PocoJoe]

Intel surpasses AMD in the only thing that matters to most people which is gaming performance. Other benchmarks don't matter. Not only that, AMD still sucks in single-threaded performance.

Did your comment fall out of male cows ass, because it is just pure bullshit?

Funny how some still have the energy to talk trash instead of having their facts right.

Single core perf is almost identical and so it is gaming perf.

Only thing that should really matter is the price point + amount of cores and AMD is strong on those

Who the fuck Even notices if game/singlecre perf is around +-5 to 10%?

AMD makes cpus that are clearly good enough for gaming and really good for software. Intel does the same but with bit different core vs perf vs price ratio.

Both are good.

 

[llien]

Meanwhile you can get a 9900k with bundles and great discounts.

3800x is available for good 200 Euro less, if you count in the cooler price.

(dear god, number of CPUs sold by mindfactory alone is mind boggling, they sold 56k of 2600x alone, and already about 10k of 3700x/3600x (each). About 7k of 9900k were sold.

Intel surpasses AMD in the only thing that matters to most people which is gaming performance.

For starters, it is a nonsensical 2080Ti at low resolution scenario, end even there, uh:

End even then, Intel loses to AMD in some games:

And don't even get me started on which part of the security mitigating performance crippling Intel bazinga patches were applied.



3700x is a no brainer here, at about half of the 9900k price.

 

[llien]

That's what I'll probably get,don't think I can wait for Intel next year.

Which even remotely exciting Intel CPU is expected next year?

 

[longdi]

In stock at Amazon now! Buy your AMD!
Or not at $574...fucking Amazon price hike, i thought they would be better...

 

[nullpoynter]

i'm one of those people. i bought a 9900K because the 3700X i bought gave me nothing but hassle. my system was very unstable crashing constantly (ruled out all other parts so it was definitely the CPU or BIOS issue). also, the 3700X runs really hot (40-50C idle/light usage!) and actually consumes more power than a 9900K. i returned it and said fuck it i'm getting a 9900K. now i still got 8 cores / 16 threads and they all run at 5.1GHz.

not hating on AMD. there are people out there who are very happy with their Ryzen CPUs but it didn't work out for me. The cost of a 9900K/Z390 board vs a 3700X/X570 board was pretty much the same so price isn't an issue. i'm just much happier with my 9900K. it's still a good choice of CPU.

Sounds like you were definitely having a motherboard/BIOS issue. I have a 3900X that idles around 30 degrees Celsius give or take a couple of degrees. The hottest I was able to get the temps was around 70 degrees during stress testing. Normal load temps seem to be between 50 and 60 degrees. I should mention I'm using a 360mm AIO.

 

[wordslaughter]

One of the reasons I bought a 3900X over something from Intel is that I just didn't want to support Intel. Before that I was using a 3770K. A great CPU that served me well.

But since Sandy bridge Intel has just been so BORING and STAGNANT. Every year you get your new CPU that requires a new MoBo so you can get your +5% performance bump. Yawn.

And I firmly believe the ONLY reason why higher core Intel CPUs even exist (mainstream CPUs) is because of AMD. Without AMD, I doubt there would be such a thing as an i9 and they would STILL be pumping out QUAD CORE i7s.

It's AMD that brought the innovation so they get my money. I have no brand loyalty to a CPU and those that do are honestly a bit crazy. If in 5+ years when I'm looking for a new CPU if Intel has brought the innovation, then they can have my money.

 

[Chiggs]

3700x is a no brainer here, at about half of the 9900k price.

Your facts have no place here, sir! The 3rd Gen Ryzen CPUs are clearly inferior to Intel CPUs, despite all the praise the press and enthusiast segments are giving AMD.

Clearly, there is something sinister at work. Join me in my quest to defend Intel at any and all cost--including my dignity and credibility.

 

[Kenpachii]

Technically. Chances are though that there will never be a situation in any game where the difference in performance between a 3700x and a 9900K will be huge enough to affect your gameplay experience. I'm sure there are people who absolutely need to play Far Cry 5 at 150 instead of 130 fps at 1080p and are willing to spend an extra 200 bucks over a 3700x to do it, but I'm not one of those people, and neither are 99.99% of PC gamers.

Actually, I'm fairly sure that most of the people still choosing a 9900K over a 3700x don't do it because they actually expect to feel a difference in performance. They do it because they'll be able to say that they bought the fastest CPU. Not that there's anything wrong with that, I suppose.

Clearly you don't play PC games.

9900k gets pushed to its knees in many titles any FPS is useful.

Now with the price tag being 800 bucks, 9900k makes even more sense.

3800x is available for good 200 Euro less, if you count in the cooler price.

(dear god, number of CPUs sold by mindfactory alone is mind boggling, they sold 56k of 2600x alone, and already about 10k of 3700x/3600x (each). About 7k of 9900k were sold.


For starters, it is a nonsensical 2080Ti at low resolution scenario, end even there, uh:

End even then, Intel loses to AMD in some games:

And don't even get me started on which part of the security mitigating performance crippling Intel bazinga patches were applied.



3700x is a no brainer here, at about half of the 9900k price.

1440p how to benchmark cpu's.

U guys try way to hard. These benchmarks are some next level of stupid. I can see the site making them just for the sake of having some useless information and having some useless information is better then nothing i guess. but people actually using it to drive a point? yea cringe.

But honestly those results i start to wonder if some stock holders or some of those amd blinded zealots on neogaf work for that website. U could honestly run those benchmarks all over again and get complete different results. 1 fps difference on ~200 fps is basically the same outcome as it fluxuates always. Them hitting the results and showcasing those results makes them suspicious as shit. Unless those benchmarks are picked on purpose and specifically out of a long range of them and isolated to push a agenda on purpose which i seem more likely.

 

[wordslaughter]

Yeah, we need 9900k/2080ti 480p benchmarks at low settings /s

 

[Kenpachii]

Yeah, we need 9900k/2080ti 480p benchmarks at low settings /s

Na should test it at 300k resolutions. so all the benchmarks are at 1 fps which makes all the cpu's just as fast as pentium 4's clocked at 10mhz.

3900x just as fast as a 1 cent cpu.

Nice.

 

[Chiggs]

Yeah, we need 9900k/2080ti 480p benchmarks at low settings /s

It's the only resolution I game at.

 

[Kenpachii]

Just checked the price from its release. I had to pay 555 euro's for the cpu a few months ago when it released.

Guess these sites need a new supplier. And unlike these clowns at techpowerup, that doesn't mean the CPU got cheaper, a flux of 10 bucks has always been a thing.

As example, i bought the 9900k for 505,45 euro's, its now 514.

 

[wordslaughter]

Na should test it at 300k resolutions. so all the benchmarks are at 1 fps which makes all the cpu's just as fast as pentium 4's clocked at 10mhz.

3900x just as fast as a 1 cent cpu.

Nice.

Or MAYBE both of our sarcastic examples are ridiculous and the only thing that matters is how it performs at the resolutions people actually game at.

And at those resolutions the difference in gaming is less than 2%... but in productivity the difference is 40% in favor of the 3900X.

 

[llien]

1440p how to benchmark cpu's.

Oh, you mean how to benchmark CPUs in games...

Correct way, I assume, would be... 720p,
Because, even though people who paid $1300 for a GPU do not game at 720p, it artificially shifts bottleneck to CPU and gives us a forecast on how CPUs would perform in the newer games, that would come in the future and strain CPUs more.

Right?

 

[LazyParrot]

Clearly you don't play PC games.

9900k gets pushed to its knees in many titles any FPS is useful.

Now with the price tag being 800 bucks, 9900k makes even more sense.

Show me a game that's playable on a 9900K, but not a 3700X. And no "You need a 9900K for CSGO because it's unplayable below 500 FPS" bullshit, please.

 

[MadViking]

So if there is no difference at gaming, why not just get 9400f. At higher resolution and weeker gpu you would get the same performance as 3900x. For fraction of the price. And cheeper MB and memory too.

 

[thelastword]

Show me a game that's playable on a 9900K, but not a 3700X. And no "You need a 9900K for CSGO because it's unplayable below 500 FPS" bullshit, please.

9900k is the 480p overlord, "its the way we play"...….I'm playing CSGO right now on my 60hz 480p Dell Trinitron monitor at 500fps...….

I'm feeling all of that 500fps blazing glory on my 60hz monitor...Its pretty pyschedelic…....You have not gamed if you've never experienced this...

 

[thelastword]

i'm one of those people. i bought a 9900K because the 3700X i bought gave me nothing but hassle. my system was very unstable crashing constantly (ruled out all other parts so it was definitely the CPU or BIOS issue). also, the 3700X runs really hot (40-50C idle/light usage!) and actually consumes more power than a 9900K. i returned it and said fuck it i'm getting a 9900K. now i still got 8 cores / 16 threads and they all run at 5.1GHz.

Intel surpasses AMD in the only thing that matters to most people which is gaming performance. Other benchmarks don't matter. Not only that, AMD still sucks in single-threaded performance.