Deciding between building a mainstream PC and a high-end desktop has historically been very clear cut: if budget is a concern, and you're interested in gaming, then typically a user looks to the mainstream. Otherwise, if a user is looking to do more professional high-compute work, then they look at the high-end desktop. Over the course of AMD’s recent run of high-core count Ryzen processors that line has blurred. This year, that line has disappeared. Even in 2016, mainstream CPUs used to top out at four cores: today they now top out at sixteen.

Does anyone need sixteen cores? Yes.

Does everyone need sixteen cores? No.

There are two fundamental drivers for most PC builders: cost and performance. Users who want a gaming machine are going to put their dollars in what gives them the best gaming performance. Users that want to edit video are going to look at content creation focused hardware. For those in the business world, the added incentive of extra performance is being able to offset or amortize those costs with an improved work rate. For the video editor needing a week per video, if they can spend +40% to reduce the render time by half then it can pay off over a short period of time.

As we move through 2019, users are doing more with their systems. Even at the low end, users might have double monitors where they game and watch their favourite streamer at the same time. High end users might reserve certain cores for different tasks, ensuring that there’s always some horsepower for the high-throughput tasks or virtual machines. Even though processors became ‘multi-core’ over a decade ago, we all as users are only recently adjusting how we do things to be more parallel, and the hardware is coming up to match our demands.

To that end, AMD’s Ryzen processors have been timely. The first generation mainstream Ryzen hardware in 2017 was a breath of fresh air in a market that had become sufficiently stale to be unexciting. With the color drained, AMD’s Ryzen enabled up to eight cores on a single CPU, and at the time aimed to throw its weight against Intel’s hardware in the class above. The new architecture didn’t push ahead on day one clock for clock, but it enabled a different paradigm at an obscenely reasonable price point.

Enter round 2, and Zen 2. Earlier this year AMD pushed again, this time putting 12 cores in the market for the same price as 8, or what had been the 4-core price point only three years prior. In three years we had triple the cores for the same price, and these cores also have more raw performance. The frequency wasn’t as high as the competition, but this was offset by that raw clock-for-clock throughput and ultimately where the competition now offered eight cores, AMD offered 12 at a much lower power consumption to boot.

Today is round 2 part 2: taking that same 12-core processor, and adding four more cores (for a 50% increase in price), and not only going after the best consumer processor Intel has to offer, but even the best high-end desktop processor. This is AMD squeezing Intel’s product portfolio like never before. What exactly is mainstream, anyway?

AMD’s new Ryzen 9 3950X has a suggested retail price of $749. For that AMD is advertising sixteen of its latest Zen 2 cores built on TSMC’s 7nm process, running at a 3.5 GHz base frequency and a 4.7 GHz single-core turbo frequency. The TDP of the chip is rated at 105 watts and it has 24 PCIe 4.0 lanes as well as dual memory channels that support up to 128 GB of DDR4-3200.

AMD 'Matisse' Ryzen 3000 Series CPUs
AnandTech Cores
TDP Price
Ryzen 9 3950X 16C 32T 3.5 4.7 8 MB 64 MB 16+4+4 1+2 105W $749
Ryzen 9 3900X 12C 24T 3.8 4.6 6 MB 64 MB 16+4+4 1+2 105W $499
Ryzen 9 3900 12C 24T 3.1 4.3 6 MB 64 MB 16+4+4 1+2 65W OEM
Ryzen 7 3800X 8C 16T 3.9 4.5 4 MB 32 MB 16+4+4 1+1 105W $399
Ryzen 7 3700X 8C 16T 3.6 4.4 4 MB 32 MB 16+4+4 1+1 65W $329
Ryzen 5 3600X 6C 12T 3.8 4.4 3 MB 32 MB 16+4+4 1+1 95W $249
Ryzen 5 3600 6C 12T 3.6 4.2 3 MB 32 MB 16+4+4 1+1 65W $199
Ryzen 5 3500X 6C 6T 3.6 4.1 3 MB 32 MB 16+4+4 1+1 65W OEM

It wasn’t too long ago that this price range used to be the realm of AMD’s high-end desktop Threadripper processors, which started at 8 cores and we up to 32 cores. AMD is now shifting that paradigm as well, with this 16-core chip being at $749, and AMD’s next generation Threadripper 3000 processors starting at 24-cores at $1399. When AMD CEO Dr. Lisa Su was asked earlier this year what would happen given the drive to more cores for the mainstream processors, her response was ‘as Ryzen goes up, Threadripper goes up-up’. This is the realization of that.

It is worth noting that the price is likely to be higher at retail initially, as demand is expected to be high and stock levels haven’t been defined – given the popularity of the 12-core chip, it would seem that users wanting the mainstream platform always want the best.

Going AM4: The Battle with Motherboards

When the AM4 platform was first launched, technically with pre-Zen hardware, it supported four cores. The same platform now goes all the way up to sixteen cores, which is no small task. The flip side of this comes down to motherboard support: some AM4 motherboards were not designed with high-power sixteen core processors in mind. Some motherboards built on the AM4 socket were for the budget market, and will struggle when it comes to this 16-core part.

AMD has attempted to at least segment its AM4 market a little. Only the latest AM4 chipset, the X570 chipset, has official support for the Ryzen 3000-series PCIe 4.0 connections. In order to enable the PCIe 4.0 lanes on the processor as qualified by AMD, users will have to purchase an X570 motherboard, otherwise these lanes will run at half speed (PCIe 3.0) in non-X570 motherboards.

The quality of the motherboard is likely to affect turbo frequencies as well. AMD’s turbo algorithms are influenced in part by the ability of the power delivery to push current through from the power supply. We are seeing X570 motherboards range from $170 all the way up to $999. This isn’t saying that doubling the cost of the motherboard will double the ability to turbo, but as seen with the previous Ryzen 3000 series chips, the motherboard choice (as well as the cooling it uses) will matter.

All the X570 motherboards we’ve tested recently are up to the task of taming the Ryzen 9 3950X. Here’s a list of what we’ve tested:

Users looking at motherboards have to find the right mix of capacity, cost, and features. We did a visual inspection of all 35+ launch models.

Toe-to-Toe: Intel Core i9-9900KS / Core i9-9980XE / Core i9-10980XE

With the mainstream and high-end desktop market now seemingly merging, there are many angles to consider different competitive parts between Intel and AMD. If we compete purely on PCIe lanes, then we might put the Core i9-9900KS (8-cores) up against the 3950X (16-cores), although there is a big price difference ($513 vs. $749). If we compare on pricing, the nearest processor to the 3950X would be either the 9900KS (mainstream) or the Core i9-10940X ($729), however while 3950X has more cores than either, but doesn’t have as many PCIe lanes/memory lanes as the 10940X. If we go for core count, then Intel’s sixteen Core i9-9960X would be the obvious candidate, although this CPU is a lot more expensive (until Intel reduces the price) and is technically an X299 processor, so has more PCIe lanes and memory channels.

Unlocked CPU Pricing
and Select Others
(MSRP Pricing)
Cores AnandTech Cores Intel*
(OEM Pricing)
    $900-$999 18/36 Core i9-10980XE ($979)
Ryzen 9 3950X ($749) 16/32 $700-$799 14/28 Core i9-10940X ($784)
    $600-$699 12/24 Core i9-10920X ($689)
    $500-$599 10/20
Core i9-10900X ($590)
Core i9-9900KS ($513)
Ryzen 9 3900X ($499) 12/24 $400-$499 8/16 Core i9-9900K/F ($488)
Ryzen 7 3800X ($399) 8/16 $350-$399 8/8 Core i7-9700K/F ($374)
Ryzen 7 3700X ($329) 8/16 $300-$349    
    $250-$299 6/6 Core i5-9600K ($262)
Ryzen 5 3600X ($249) 6/12 $200-$249    
Ryzen 5 3600 ($199) 6/12 Below $200 4/4 Core i3-9350K ($173)
*Intel quotes OEM/tray pricing. Retail pricing will sometimes be $20-$50 higher.

There is no easy comparison between any of the processors. AMD is pushing the boundaries of the mainstream dual channel memory processor regime, and Intel doesn't have an equivalent in that space. Intel can match it in the high-end desktop space, but therein lays other issues with PCIe lane counts and memory channel support disparity between the two, as well as Intel’s current retail options being high-priced variants. Intel’s published next generation hardware is set to be launched sometime in November, and with it a number of price cuts, however given the known differences between Intel’s current and Intel’s next generation processor line, the performance gain is not expected to be particularly big.

Going For Power: Is 105W TDP Accurate?
Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • nathanddrews - Friday, November 15, 2019 - link

    That's typically the main problem: minimum frames. Across most benchmarks, Intel can maintain significantly higher minimum frame rates for 144Hz and up. Obviously these metrics are going to be very game-dependent and settings-dependent, but the data are very clear: Intel's higher frequencies give it a significant advantage for minimum frames.
  • treichst - Thursday, November 14, 2019 - link

    165hz monitord have existed for a while now. 240hz monitors exist from a number of vendors.
  • RedGreenBlue - Thursday, November 14, 2019 - link

    The reason this is okay is the same reason a lot, or most, car engines advertise a.b liter engines when in reality it’s about a.(b - 0.05). It’s a generally accepted point of court precedents, or maybe in the laws themselves, that you can’t sue for rounding, unless it’s an unreasonable difference from the reality. So if you want to sue AMD, expect to be laughed out of court.
  • shaolin81 - Friday, November 15, 2019 - link

    Problem most probably relies on using High performance profile. When I use it with my 2700X, idle cores are nearly never parked and therefore there's no room for CPU to get Max Turbo on a single core. When I change it to balanced profile, I most idle cores are parked and I get beyon Max Turbo easily - to 4450Mhz. Anandtech should try this.
  • prophet001 - Friday, November 15, 2019 - link

    I think that's me too nathanddrews. I mostly play WoW and though I haven't seen any actual benchmarks, I'm pretty sure that the 9900KS will outperform the Ryzens. WoW just scales with clock speed past like 4 cores.
  • SRB181 - Friday, November 15, 2019 - link

    I've often wondered what people are looking for when cpu's get to this point. I'm absolutely positive the 9900ks will outperform my current CPU (1950x), but I'm getting 78 fps at 4k60 in WOW set to ultra (10) in the graphics. Not being a jerk, but what exactly do you notice in gameplay with 9900ks that I would notice/see?
  • prophet001 - Monday, November 18, 2019 - link

    I don't have a 9900 I've just seen how WoW behaves with various processors and my own personal experience. I have an old extreme processor x299 chipset with a 1080 GTX. It's highly CPU bound. Even though the processor is 4 core hyper threaded, it won't get past like 45 FPS in Boralus. I know it's not GPU bound because I look at the GPU load in GPU-z and it's like 40% load. I can turn render scale up or down and doesn't really make a difference on my computer.

    That, along with other people's research, leads me to believe that WoW is highly CPU bound but more specifically, core clock speed bound. People that get 5GHz get much more out of the game than people that leave their CPUs at stock clocks.
  • Qasar - Monday, November 18, 2019 - link

    prophet001 there must be something else going on with your system, as i type this i am sitting in Boralus harbor, right above where the ship from SW docks looking out towards the mountain, with the ship from SW coming into dock on the left. i am getting a minimum of 65 FPS as i spin in the spot. im running a Asus stix, 1060 gaming, with a i7 5930K @ 4.2 ghz. @ 1080P in other zones, i have seen as high as the 180s.... cpu and GPU utilization is 30-40% and a solid 25% respectfully.
    maybe there is something else with your system that is causing this ?
  • Qasar - Monday, November 18, 2019 - link

    should also mention, thats with pretty much max on the graphics options.
  • WaltC - Friday, November 15, 2019 - link

    Wrong answer...;) AMD has only ever said "Max single core boost", emphasis on the word "max," which evidently must be translated for the benefit of people mindlessly trying to pick it apart because the meaning of "max" ever eludes them!...;) Really, I've seen all kinds of stupid come out on this one. AMD does not say, "guaranteed single core boost of 4.7GHz" because it's not guaranteed at all--it is the "max" single-core boost obtainable--not the "only" single-core boost the CPU is capable of! Uh--I mean, I'm embarrassed I actually have to explain this, but *any single-core boost clock above the base clock of the cpu* is a *genuine boost of the core* and "max" of course means only the very maximum single core boost clock obtainable at any given time, depending on all of the attendant conditions! So, take a situation in which all the cores boost to 4.5Ghz, 4.6GHz or 4.3Ghz--every single one of them is providing the advertised single-core boost! And yes, people are indeed seeing 4.7GHz *maximums*--but not all of the time, of course, since "max" doesn't mean "all of the time every time," does it,? In their zeal to defend an otherwise indefendable Intel--people have completely butchered the "max" single core boost concept (well, Intel people have butchered it, I should say..;)). Gee--if the only boost these CPUs ever did was 4.7GHz, then none of them would be "max," would they--they'd be the *normal clock* and the damn CPU would be running at 4.7GHz continuously on all cores!...;) I mean, is it possible for people to wax anymore stupid on this subject than this? "Max" absolutely does not mean "all the time every time"--else "max" would have no meaning at all. Jeez--the stupid is strong @ Intel these days...;) Also, it's interesting to note that with fewer cores and a slower clock AMD processes data *faster* than Intel even though the Intel CPU has more cores and a higher clock--so please, the confusion over "max single core boost clocks" from AMD is just plain dumb, imo. It's plain enough--always has been. Multicore CPUs do not exist merely to see to what GHz a *single core* might reach @ maximum! Jeez--we graduated from single-thread thinking long years ago...;) (Or, rather, some of us did.)

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now