Gear:
DDR4 uses about the same power as DDR3, with XMP enabled. This speeds up the RAM from 2100 or 2133Mhz to whatever it's rated for (usually 2400/2699/2900/3200 or even 3600Mhz).
Meanwhile max DDR3 speeds are only 1600Mhz.
At the stock 2100/2133Mhz, a 3200Mhz module runs at 1,2V instead of 1,5V on DDR3, and uses less power.
However RAM consumption is very minimal. Just a little more than an SSD; A few watts at most.
For CPU usage, DDR speed matters a lot more than for GPU crunching, so I'd say yes.

PSU:
Gold PSUs usually have a 90% efficiency rating at 80% load, and a 80% efficiency rating at below 40% and above 85 (sometimes 90)% load, quite often using lower fan profiles (alllowing the PSU to run hotter) to hit that target. Hot PSUs is not recommended.
You'll be paying yourself blue on a gold rated PSU. Instead, try to aim for between 50-75% load on a PSU.
If your system is using 500W, aim to get anywhere from a 800-1000W PSU. They still run awesome efficiencies, and the electric cost difference between a gold PSU and a bronze 80+ , you can recuperate in about 10 years (far after the PSU has given up the ghost running 24/7).
In my opinion gold or platinum PSUs aren't worth it. Get a regular, run off the mill Bronze PSU.
As far as brands go, I've had 4 EVGA PSUs blow out on me, meanwhile similar priced Corsair, as well as (surprisingly) the Amazon brand Rosewill has lasted me a long time without fail!

CPU Cooler:
I would really urge you to get a closed watercooling system on any 65W or greater CPU, especially the Ryzen CPUs, as well as modern Intel CPUs that turbo up the frequency based on the CPU temperature!
They're not that much more expensive than an air cooler.
For reference, a cheap air cooler costs $8, a decent one costs $14-20. A good one (for 65+W TDP) can easily hit in the 30's to 40's of USD or more!
A good single fan closed loop water cooling circuit, like this one, with a 1 year warranty, but guaranteed to work for at least 2 years non stop, will cost you just $45. It is good enough for 65W CPUs, and in case you'd run a Ryzen 9 CPU, it will allow the Ryzen to run at higher boost frequencies. Newer CPUs are much more susceptible to temperatures.
I don't believe the 1% difference review, unless he compared it to a $45+ air cooler. Even then, CPUs would hit 60C easily with those coolers, while they only hit in the high 40s to middle 50C on water cooling.
And there are so many bios settings on those CPUs, that you could run a single core at only 2,5Ghz (when all core boost is selected). In such case, no cooler would probably give the same results as a water cooling system!
My stock air cooler was so crappy, I had to throw it out in the garbage!
It would actually thermal throttle the CPU that under load it was hitting only 700Mhz!
That's a good 80+% reduction in performance. Granted, the block didn't look shiny and even, and looked like they did a shoddy job. But that was the one delivered with the 3900x.

A dual 120mm liquid cooling systems are great for Ryzen 9 3000 series CPUs (running 105w or less).
What's even more amazing is that a ryzen 9, has an eco setting in the bios.
A 105W ryzen can run at 65W (1/3rd less power consumption), and loses only about 15% of performance at that wattage! (which is right now the epitomy of efficiency).
In this ECO setting you can even water-cool the CPU with the single fan cooler I mentionend above!

In my opinion, if you're going air cooling or small (sub $40 cheap) liquid cooling, a 3950x doesn't make sense over a 3900x.
Because even with water cooling, both of their turbo frequencies are still thermally throttled.
The 3900x has fewer cores, but has higher boost speeds than the 3950x (I have them both).
You do the math and the few 100Mhz I get extra on a 3900x makes that it actually performs within 2% equal to the 3950x, save for overclocking or when a decent cooler is installed.
So I would not recommend the 3950x for the price.

Oh, and don't read their performance ratings. They're only valid when you're running the Ryzen 9 3900 series overclocked to their 'rated' 4,2 on all cores boost frequencies (at like 160-200W or so), which no person ever seems to hit without exotic cooling!
At the stock 65W (95W system consumption), it only hits a boost on all cores of about 3,5Ghz. At 105W (145W system) it runs 3,8Ghz, and occasionally hits 4,1 depending on the load. Those benchmarks are all done at the rated 4,2Ghz on all cores (massive cooling, and lots of VRMs).

For a 3900/3950x to make sense, I think anyone should get a dual fan (dual 120mm) liquid cooling system.
They go for about $100.

ARM processors:
From my observation on X86 PPD scoring and ARM, it fluctuates all over the place.
ARM is from 2,5 to 10x slower, but hits more of an average of about 5-8x slower on most benchmarks I've seen (depending from project to project) than x86 for similar clock speeds.
And here's the catch,
If you can run a better PPD/W on ARM, but the score comes in way too slow (takes days, vs only hours would you do it?
X86 is performing way faster, and you'll really need something with plenty of cores!
With an average runtime of 30k seconds per unit (8 hours per Wu) on ARM, vs 2000 seconds (=0.5hrs) on an x86 CPU running almost double the frequency, ARM IS 16x slower on my Rosetta WUs (8x if you do clock for clock).
They're using about 1W power consumption per core, which includes EMMC, Wifi, HDMI outputs and power supply, vs the X86 which gets RAM, PSU efficiencies and GPUs as added load.
So performance per Watt, 7nm Ryzen 9 CPUs pretty much match 10-12nm ARM processors pretty well.
Not their 12/14nm CPUs, only their latest gen CPUs (built on 7nm).

Another thing, a similarly performing system than a 3900x (24 threads) is at least 24 (quadcore) ARM boards, which are also about 24 times more troublesome to maintain!
If a server goes offline with a multicore X86 CPU, all it takes is just rebooting it.
In my experience, an ARM board usually goes offline at least once a week, sometimes even multiple times a day.
It could be from no internet, nothing to do, so it turns itself into sleep mode.
Errors, whatever...
I gave up on ARM servers a while back.
Not until they come out with an affordable 64+ core ARM CPU. I won't keep busy with the quad boards like the Pi.
BTW, if you really want to go ARM, and are thinking of the Pi, why not go with AMLogic boards?
Those $35 TV boxes they sell on Ebay?
They are cheaper, faster, and support Android.

Another issue with ARM, is that Rosetta only supports it for COVID19.
We don't know if they'll going to keep supporting it once the COVID 19 batches are finished.
My call would be:
You're much safer with X86.

It usually isn't worth it to overclock because for any reasonable level, the voltage will need to be increased as well and that causes squarely proportional power increase. At the same time, it increases efficiency a lot if we undervolt (negative offset) at stock clock because that's basically free money if done right.

This article increased frequency of a 3700X by 18% for a sub-10% gain in performance, but even if it gained 18% it wouldn't be worth it if we factor in power increase: https://www.digitalcitizen.life/overclocking-amd-ryzen-7-3700x.

This article increased frequency of a 3700X by 18% for a sub-10% gain in performance

I'm surprised it did that well. These days the boost functions of the various CPUs get plenty out of them without a huge power hit.
These days you're lucky to get a 5% performance boost for a 15% increase in power usage, which just isn't worth it IMHO.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

It usually isn't worth it to overclock because for any reasonable level, the voltage will need to be increased as well and that causes squarely proportional power increase. At the same time, it increases efficiency a lot if we undervolt (negative offset) at stock clock because that's basically free money if done right.

This article increased frequency of a 3700X by 18% for a sub-10% gain in performance, but even if it gained 18% it wouldn't be worth it if we factor in power increase: https://www.digitalcitizen.life/overclocking-amd-ryzen-7-3700x.

I'm going to have to investigate this further, because it all seems very different to the generation of CPUs I've been using for a long while.
Thanks for the links

---

This article increased frequency of a 3700X by 18% for a sub-10% gain in performance, but even if it gained 18% it wouldn't be worth it if we factor in power increase: https://www.digitalcitizen.life/overclocking-amd-ryzen-7-3700x.

I'm going to have to investigate this further, because it all seems very different to the generation of CPUs I've been using for a long while.
Thanks for the links

The Bulldozer architecture really was a disaster for AMD- huge power requirements, poor performance, but they finally got their act back together with Ryzen.
If you're looking for a new system, then a Ryzen 3000 is the only way to go if you plan to get it in the next 6 months or so. Then Ryzen 4000 for the desktop is due for release (rumours are late July, early Sept) & early leaks indicate it has a significant improvement in performance even over the Ryzen 3000 series.


At present- if money is tight then Ryzen9 or Ryzen 7.
For insane performance (and a price to match) Threadripper3

---

Grant
Darwin NT

If you're looking for a new system, then a Ryzen 3000 is the only way to go if you plan to get it in the next 6 months or so. Then Ryzen 4000 for the desktop is due for release (rumours are late July, early Sept) & early leaks indicate it has a significant improvement in performance even over the Ryzen 3000 series.


At present- if money is tight then Ryzen9 or Ryzen 7.
For insane performance (and a price to match) Threadripper3

What motherboard chipset would you pair that with?

My Ryzen 2600 is on an A320 but if I replace my Piledriver set up with a Ryzen 4000 would I be better with a B450 or X570 or ???

If you're looking for a new system, then a Ryzen 3000 is the only way to go if you plan to get it in the next 6 months or so. Then Ryzen 4000 for the desktop is due for release (rumours are late July, early Sept) & early leaks indicate it has a significant improvement in performance even over the Ryzen 3000 series.


At present- if money is tight then Ryzen9 or Ryzen 7.
For insane performance (and a price to match) Threadripper3

What motherboard chipset would you pair that with?

My Ryzen 2600 is on an A320 but if I replace my Piledriver set up with a Ryzen 4000 would I be better with a B450 or X570 or ???

I have had good luck with B350/B450/X470 chip motherboards. I run several different brands including an Asus ROG Crosshair VII Hero (Amd 3900x/upgraded to a 3950x) which has been VERY reliable but is limited to 6 gpus. And a MSI B350 chip MB.

Take a look at the reviews looking for the highest end VRM (power) stuff for your price range.

If you are planning on exceeding 6 gpus you will need to avoid Asus.

I have a mid-grade Asus Prime (B450) MB out on loan but while I was using it, it seemed to be reliable and a good fit for 24/7 crunching.

HTH,
Tom M

---

Help, my tagline is missing..... Help, my tagline is......... Help, m........ Hel.....

This article increased frequency of a 3700X by 18% for a sub-10% gain in performance, but even if it gained 18% it wouldn't be worth it if we factor in power increase: https://www.digitalcitizen.life/overclocking-amd-ryzen-7-3700x.

I'm going to have to investigate this further, because it all seems very different to the generation of CPUs I've been using for a long while.
Thanks for the links

The Bulldozer architecture really was a disaster for AMD- huge power requirements, poor performance, but they finally got their act back together with Ryzen.
If you're looking for a new system, then a Ryzen 3000 is the only way to go if you plan to get it in the next 6 months or so. Then Ryzen 4000 for the desktop is due for release (rumours are late July, early Sept) & early leaks indicate it has a significant improvement in performance even over the Ryzen 3000 series.

At present- if money is tight then Ryzen9 or Ryzen 7.
For insane performance (and a price to match) Threadripper3

Currently eking out my time on Piledriver, but yes, price will be an issue and Ryzen 7 will be my next staging post when the time comes.

So much changes I don't look at all, then cram everything into the month before I decide. I'll revisit next year most likely.
I'm following the discussion - all valuable to me and much appreciated

---

So much changes I don't look at all, then cram everything into the month before I decide. I'll revisit next year most likely.

Next year will probably be a good time to buy. Ryzen 4000 for desktops will have been out for a while, so 3000 series CPUs should be very cheap (it's expected the new series will come out very close in price to the current series), and the 4000 series should have any bugs/motherboard BIOS issues fully resolved.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

We should actually have an editable wiki entry about the most efficient cruncher of the given year as a reference ("buyer guide"). Someone else has just asked me the same thing!

Yes, I agree that the Ryzen 7 and 9 are one of the top contenders.

It's interesting how I first thought the Threadripper3 wouldn't be worth it, but seeing this review and plugging in the parameters into the formula convinced me that this one crunches well, too.

Based on FLOPS, this one should produce 100k RAC for ~$5k TCO ($8-$10/GFLOPS).

Although, we seem to have forgotten to consider that cores within a single motherboard also share memory bandwidth that could impact overall productivity. Not everything fits into the cache you know.

We also seem to have waved away the potential interest rate lost over the years on large upfront investments and the effect of inflation on resale value. Both of these favor a bit less energy efficient specimens with a bit higher power consumption. Hence we should refine the original formula measuring efficiency, I guess.

Yes, I agree that the Ryzen 7 and 9 are one of the top contenders.

It's interesting how I first thought the Threadripper3 wouldn't be worth it, but seeing this review and plugging in the parameters into the formula convinced me that this one crunches well, too.

Based on FLOPS, this one should produce 100k RAC for ~$5k TCO ($8-$10/GFLOPS).

Although, we seem to have forgotten to consider that cores within a single motherboard also share memory bandwidth that could impact overall productivity. Not everything fits into the cache you know.

I promise to NEVER forget that issue. I bought an Amd Threadripper 2990WX (32c/64t) and discovered to my horror that 26 threads was the most productive I could get. It was due to the memory model which required 2 hops to access memory for half the cpus.

We also seem to have waved away the potential interest rate lost over the years on large upfront investments and the effect of inflation on resale value. Both of these favor a bit less energy efficient specimens with a bit higher power consumption. Hence we should refine the original formula measuring efficiency, I guess.

Unless inflation/stagflation were to kick in the "cost of money over time" (eg. interest) is amazingly low.

Tom M

---

Help, my tagline is missing..... Help, my tagline is......... Help, m........ Hel.....

I am using a 3800x AMD with a 1080 video card, 16gb memory and a couple ssd's. I run Boinc at 100% with 8 core/16 threads but to keep it cool and use less power I am going into power and sleep, then under the power plan settings I set it to power saver, then under advanced settings I set maximum processor state to 90%. Temps change from 78c(its throttling at 80c)to 55-57c and the cpu power use drops from 80 watts to 32 watts with Boinc and firefox running. This is according to Ryzen Master.
It lets me run 24/7 without any heat issues and saves on power to run it at 3475 mhz(90%) instead of all out at 4100-4150 mhz on 8 cores. Keeps the cpu voltages down to just under 1 volt as a side benefit. I only use high performance or balanced in power settings for some games.
This is with air and a aftermarket brick.

I am using a 3800x AMD with a 1080 video card, 16gb memory and a couple ssd's. I run Boinc at 100% with 8 core/16 threads but to keep it cool and use less power I am going into power and sleep, then under the power plan settings I set it to power saver, then under advanced settings I set maximum processor state to 90%. Temps change from 78c(its throttling at 80c)to 55-57c and the cpu power use drops from 80 watts to 32 watts with Boinc and firefox running. This is according to Ryzen Master.
It lets me run 24/7 without any heat issues and saves on power to run it at 3475 mhz(90%) instead of all out at 4100-4150 mhz on 8 cores. Keeps the cpu voltages down to just under 1 volt as a side benefit. I only use high performance or balanced in power settings for some games.
This is with air and a aftermarket brick.

+1

---

Help, my tagline is missing..... Help, my tagline is......... Help, m........ Hel.....

Just some added settings. PBO on in bios, memory at 3600mhz. No other changes, most current bios and chipset drivers.
Edit:Oh Ya, x570 motherboard.

Just some added settings. PBO on in bios, memory at 3600mhz. No other changes, most current bios and chipset drivers.
Edit:Oh Ya, x570 motherboard.

:)

---

Help, my tagline is missing..... Help, my tagline is......... Help, m........ Hel.....

Thank you for the data point. So now that you downclock the 3800X, you've just got yourself a 3700X (3.6GHz) that was binned for higher overclock (and maybe less power efficiency). I think on Linux, the following is doing the same - I've set it up on a laptop to keep BOINC quiet while I'm working on it:

 echo 90 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/intel_pstate/max_perf_pct
 echo 1 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/intel_pstate/no_turbo

The measurements are believable and you have chosen a good sweet spot (below a certain frequency, fixed system consumption parts dominate). This again shows that normal air cooling should be sufficient for a 3700X.

It is also my observation that turbo boost is pretty harmful and dialing a CPU down a notch also increases its credit/watt value - we could actually plot this for various processors.

Well, investments can be tricky, but basically loans are never free.

Don't envision promises of 100% returns and such, but in the long run, it's actually realistic for common people to find a safe investment portfolio with 5-10% return year over year, definitely above inflation. Surely we're having a hard time right now so don't base your estimates on such temporary conditions, but don't worry, we'll eventually recover as we had always in the past.

Let's considered that you have $5000 today. it is not the same if you have to pay $5000 upfront for a computer vs. $1000/year, even if we adjust the payment for inflation. In the latter case, you could still "use" $4000 of your money for a year to run your business (ice cream stand?), trade stocks or whatever. The next year you could still make use of $3000 of your money. If investing in something with a 10% return, you gain $1215 more by the fourth year (and $552 for 5%).

So in the end, despite the fact that you were set back by the same amount, you could make good use of your money with smart decisions, and thus you will have more money for your next computer.

I consider contributing to BOINC a long term, potentially lifetime investment that I would like to recommend to as many as possible, and it is always a good idea to optimize your investments.

So much changes I don't look at all, then cram everything into the month before I decide. I'll revisit next year most likely.

Next year will probably be a good time to buy. Ryzen 4000 for desktops will have been out for a while, so 3000 series CPUs should be very cheap (it's expected the new series will come out very close in price to the current series), and the 4000 series should have any bugs/motherboard BIOS issues fully resolved.

Noted. Having just bought a second hand motherboard that I haven't even tried to overclock yet I'll easily last until then and be able to pick my moment, I hope

---

Thank you for the data point. So now that you downclock the 3800X, you've just got yourself a 3700X (3.6GHz) that was binned for higher overclock (and maybe less power efficiency). I think on Linux, the following is doing the same - I've set it up on a laptop to keep BOINC quiet while I'm working on it:

 echo 90 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/intel_pstate/max_perf_pct
 echo 1 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/intel_pstate/no_turbo

The measurements are believable and you have chosen a good sweet spot (below a certain frequency, fixed system consumption parts dominate). This again shows that normal air cooling should be sufficient for a 3700X.

It is also my observation that turbo boost is pretty harmful and dialing a CPU down a notch also increases its credit/watt value - we could actually plot this for various processors.

Yes its like a 3700x. The added benefit is its quiet, at the lower threshold of my hearing and not irritating. A fan control program from the manufacturer of the motherboard which I use to auto control fans, sets the fans at about 6-700 rpm when Boinc is running when I am at 90%. At 100% cpu utilization the fan control program ramps up the fans and they get loud. Lots of fans in my case.