AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT, 12 Cores & 24 Threads Unlocked Desktop Processor Without Cooler

My i7-4790k wasn't cutting it. I would run at 100% on games and video editing. It was time for a new CPU. So I looked around, and since my son has the R7 2700x and was pleased with it, I decided to go with Ryzen. But I wanted something that I could throw anything at and handle it with ease. I saw the new R9 3900xt, which has a small boost up from the 3900x. So now I have my computer running and WOW, I've been missing a lot. On Minecraft, chunks load a lot faster, not at a snail pace. Need for Speed is great. getting huge fps. With the i7, the game would run the cpu at 100%. This R9 is barely using 7% of it's weight in running NFS. Let's not forget about downloads. This thing is quick. The i7 would take forever. go get snack and take a nap and it's still downloading. But R9, blink your eyes and it's done.R9 3900xtGSkill Flare X C14 3200ASRock Taichi X570Samsung SSD

Wow. Just wow. This processor is a clear win for AMD. Upgraded my old Vishera system with this, 64 gb or RAM and and Thunderbolt 3 capable MOBO, and WOW! I am extremely impressed and happy with this purchase. I use the system for a Digital Audio Workstation, and it performs impressively. My mixes go much more smoothly, and there is processor headroom to spare. I'd say that the performance increase from my 8 core Vishera to this CPU is at least ten fold..... maybe more. In any case, it is a significant upgrade, and the fastest computer that I have ever used.

Three years ago, I build a system with an Intel i7 7700K. Last month, I replaced that Intel with an AMD R7 3800X, which advertised a 4.5GHz speed, but typically delivered about 4.2 for single core loads and 4.0 for all core. That isn't unusual for Ryzen CPU's, where your "up to" speed and your actual speed will vary by 200-300MHz. The single core speed just wasn't enough of an improvement over my old Intel. It also isn't worth my time (or yours) trying to mess with overclock settings when the chip is pretty well optimized out of the box.Enter the new XT processors. I could have swapped up to the 3800XT, which would have given me the speed bump I wanted, but would have cost $70 more for just that extra MHz. The 3900XT here was $170 more, but delivered 50% more cores as well as the same low-load speed of the lesser XT chip. It's the better value, and likely the more future-proof solution as well, as more software is written to take advantage of high core counts.So what does this 3900XT do? It does indeed hit the 4.7GHz advertised speed on 2 cores (4766MHz to be exact). It will do this while you're browsing the web or otherwise not doing much. Low-to-Medium use cases (e.g. games) will see the chip turbo up to 4.2-4.5GHz. The heaviest loads will see a boost to 4.0-4.2GHz. The exact number depends on the specific kind of program being run. In general, it's a 5-10% improvement over the 3800X.Your exact chip will vary a bit from these figures, likely less than 100MHz. It might also depend on your cooling setup. I stuck my 3900XT into a ITX box and a compact heat sink (pictured). More robust cooling and a more aggressive PBO (a built-in overclocking function) could probably net you slightly better performance. Again, on the order of 100-150MHz. So you could, potentially, see 4.7+ top speeds and 4.6 in-game turbos. However, AMD doesn't leave performance hanging out there.The main thing to consider is why this over the 3900X (no "T") which can be had for $70-100 less. In my case, I was choosing the better binning, the better chance of hitting higher low-thread clocks, and (preferably) lower heat. In short, I wanted a sure bet. The 3900XT delivers. This chip, unless you're hitting all 12 cores with 24 threads, actually runs as cool or cooler than my 3800X.So if you're looking for a lot of GHz and a lot of cores, and money isn't really an object, get this. There will be something new around the corner (there always is) and at that point, maybe you should get that instead. Right here, right now, there isn't a lot that's better.

Way more processor than I typically need. I do like to run lots of screens and have many apps/windows open, and this CPU should last me for many years. My motherboard and accompanying software set things up automatically with a modest 12% OC to all 12 cores.This default configuration is keeping all the cores locked at 4.275mhz. From what I can tell in using the machine it runs pretty cool/quiet for a configuration that is keeping everything running full speed at all times. Each core seems to be pulling from 11 to 14 watts of power depending on the load.My cooling is nothing fancy, just a cheap 240 type AIO kit (had it laying around so might as well use it) in a spacey/airy industrial style rack-mount chassis. No problems keeping temps below 50c in a room kept around 70f.I do use this build for DAW applications. Dorico, Cubase, Finale, and Sibelius are my goto apps in that arena. The sounds and effects I use aren't that CPU intensive, but they can work a storage device pretty hard. I run consumer grade storage devices (no Thunderbolt, SCS, or anything like that) on NVMe or SATA with the controllers built into my X570 motherboard. I don't do benchmarks and stuff, but the machine feels very snappy/responsive with any task I throw at it so I'm very pleased.On value, I think it really depends on what one needs, and when one is buying. I got mine in the thick of the holiday season shortly before a new generation would be released. I needed it NOW and didn't really have time to wait for the best timing or shop around. For me, there are probably better values out there for my specific needs in the lower ranges or older models, but I guess it never hurts to have some growing/future proofing room.For what I do...this processor should serve me for at least a good 10 years! As long as I don't go back and second guess myself, compare the finer points on value of other models and makes....well, I won't miss any sleep. I'll just enjoy my snappy PC and be happy.