Unfortunately, this deal is no longer available
AMD Ryzen 7 3800X 8 Core 4.5GHZ (Socket AM4) CPU + 2 games + game pass £323.69 Delivered @ Overclockers
298° Expired

AMD Ryzen 7 3800X 8 Core 4.5GHZ (Socket AM4) CPU + 2 games + game pass £323.69 Delivered @ Overclockers

£323.69£338.724%Overclockers Deals
31
Posted 29th Nov 2019

This deal is expired. Here are some options that might interest you:

Standard price at OcUK is £339.95, but if you use the code 3800Xmoneyoff at the checkout, you'll get the price down to £314.99. You also get the standard AMD offer of two games (Borderlands 3 & The Outer Worlds) and the three months Game Pass with the purchase.
The Ryzen 7 3800X is effectively less than 10% slower than the Intel Core i9 9900K but costs almost £135 less, and is arguably the better purchase for most uses.
Community Updates
If you click through or buy, retailers may pay hotukdeals some money, but this never affects which deals get posted. Find more info in our FAQs and About Us page.

Groups

31 Comments
Best deal on 3800X to date.
Re the OP, should say 10% slower in certain tasks. In many its actually faster.
And its not a competitor to the 9900k. Everything is driven by price so this chip is compared to the 9700k. Which this completely destroys.
The only reason its compared to the much more expensive chip is thats where its performance lies


Heat for the deal
r200ti29/11/2019 22:25

Re the OP, should say 10% slower in certain tasks. In many its actually …Re the OP, should say 10% slower in certain tasks. In many its actually faster. And its not a competitor to the 9900k. Everything is driven by price so this chip is compared to the 9700k. Which this completely destroys. The only reason its compared to the much more expensive chip is thats where its performance lies Heat for the deal


It's a good deal with the games no doubt, but just want to say that the scenarios in which the 9900k beats this(and 3700X) will be ones where the 9700k almost assuredly does as well. At least right now. The main area is gaming, and having 8 physical cores really is enough for basically all games, so hyperthreading isn't gonna make much difference. It may come to be a bigger differentiator in 2-3 years or so, but only time will tell.

Here's some proof, just in case: techpowerup.com/rev…tml. This is the 3700X, but obviously the 3800X is only going to be negligibly faster, and the 3900X is there as well if there's any doubt about that.
Edited by: "Seanspeed" 30th Nov 2019
Seanspeed30/11/2019 00:21

It's a good deal with the games no doubt, but just want to say that the …It's a good deal with the games no doubt, but just want to say that the scenarios in which the 9900k beats this(and 3700X) will be ones where the 9700k almost assuredly does as well. At least right now. The main area is gaming, and having 8 physical cores really is enough for basically all games, so hyperthreading isn't gonna make much difference. It may come to be a bigger differentiator in 2-3 years or so, but only time will tell. Here's some proof, just in case: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-3700x/15.html. This is the 3700X, but obviously the 3800X is only going to be negligibly faster, and the 3900X is there as well if there's any doubt about that.


Good old 1080P with a 2080Ti benches. People who spend a thousand pounds on a GPU buy a £100 monitor?

"But, but, it's a surrogate for future performance with a hypothetical GPU that creates a CPU bottleneck at higher resolutions....."

Boring.
Edited by: "Minstadave" 30th Nov 2019
Minstadave30/11/2019 08:14

Good old 1080P with a 2080Ti benches. People who spend a thousand pounds …Good old 1080P with a 2080Ti benches. People who spend a thousand pounds on a GPU buy a £100 monitor?"But, but, it's a surrogate for future performance with a hypothetical GPU that creates a CPU bottleneck at higher resolutions....."Boring.


tbf the link he sent shows 1400p benchmarks too and the intel chip still nearly always wins albeit small.
If you're a high refresh rate gamer the 8c8t chip might be the better buy as it still does get better gaming performance.
Minstadave30/11/2019 08:14

Good old 1080P with a 2080Ti benches. People who spend a thousand pounds …Good old 1080P with a 2080Ti benches. People who spend a thousand pounds on a GPU buy a £100 monitor?"But, but, it's a surrogate for future performance with a hypothetical GPU that creates a CPU bottleneck at higher resolutions....."Boring.


Actually to be fair that form of testing is intentional. They're not reviewing the system, they're specifically reviewing the CPU. They need to make the scenario CPU bound to get accurate results, rather than the results of the system in general.
Can't argue with the price, and it most certainly looks like the best price you'll see in this for a good while.

Also don't knock the extra 8 threads, you only need to look how much longer lasting and more effective the i7 2600K was Vs the i5 2500K as they aged.
Spectral30/11/2019 10:51

Actually to be fair that form of testing is intentional. They're not …Actually to be fair that form of testing is intentional. They're not reviewing the system, they're specifically reviewing the CPU. They need to make the scenario CPU bound to get accurate results, rather than the results of the system in general.


But if you need to create an extreme situation to show the difference, then the difference is irrelevant.

It's like taking two family hatchbacks on a racetrack. Yes one might be faster round a racetrack, but in the real world it doesnt matter and no one cares.
Edited by: "Minstadave" 30th Nov 2019
Some people use their systems under extreme situations. Also the job of a review is to show the entirety of a product, not just the cherry picked aspects you happen to be interested in. If they don't push them to the limits they aren't doing their job.
Edited by: "Spectral" 30th Nov 2019
Minstadave30/11/2019 08:14

Good old 1080P with a 2080Ti benches. People who spend a thousand pounds …Good old 1080P with a 2080Ti benches. People who spend a thousand pounds on a GPU buy a £100 monitor?"But, but, it's a surrogate for future performance with a hypothetical GPU that creates a CPU bottleneck at higher resolutions....."Boring.


It is the correct way to actually demonstrate differences in CPU capabilities, since that is what we were discussing.

By your reasoning, the 3800X is actually a big waste of money too, since you could just get a 3600 and get basically the same performance in 'real world' GPU limited situations. But again, that's not really what the conversation was about if you actually bothered to try and follow it.
Edited by: "Seanspeed" 30th Nov 2019
Minstadave30/11/2019 11:15

But if you need to create an extreme situation to show the difference, …But if you need to create an extreme situation to show the difference, then the difference is irrelevant.It's like taking two family hatchbacks on a racetrack. Yes one might be faster round a racetrack, but in the real world it doesnt matter and no one cares.


I dont get what your issue is. The claim made was that while the 9900k would beat the 3800X in some situations, the 9900k was not the real competition due to price. They then claim that the 3800X's real competitor was the 9700k, which the 3800X would smash in these situations. My response was to show this claim isn't true, and that the 9700k is indeed better than the 3800X in the same situations the 9900k would be. That's all.

Sorry you found that 'boring', but you didn't have to respond at all if you weren't interested in what was actually being discussed.
Seanspeed30/11/2019 12:47

I dont get what your issue is. The claim made was that while the 9900k …I dont get what your issue is. The claim made was that while the 9900k would beat the 3800X in some situations, the 9900k was not the real competition due to price. They then claim that the 3800X's real competitor was the 9700k, which the 3800X would smash in these situations. My response was to show this claim isn't true, and that the 9700k is indeed better than the 3800X in the same situations the 9900k would be. That's all. Sorry you found that 'boring', but you didn't have to respond at all if you weren't interested in what was actually being discussed.


I agree with the sentiment, and the fact of the matter the Intel is faster by ~4% overall at 1080p vs. 3800X, and about 1% (or margin of error) at 1440p.
For me personally this wouldn't be enough for buying into a dead-end platform, and with the 9700K at the similar price 3800X, which will end up being faster overall in ~12 months, due to having the extra 8-threads. Not to mention the gains to the FPS being had are with games pushing well over 100+ FPS, 4% difference at these levels is almost pointless, and 1% is pointless.

Platform choice here is paramount, and having a better platform for longer is much more sensible than having a faster CPU for a few months, in a few games by a few FPS.
Seanspeed30/11/2019 12:42

It is the correct way to actually demonstrate differences in CPU …It is the correct way to actually demonstrate differences in CPU capabilities, since that is what we were discussing.By your reasoning, the 3800X is actually a big waste of money too, since you could just get a 3600 and get basically the same performance in 'real world' GPU limited situations. But again, that's not really what the conversation was about if you actually bothered to try and follow it.


You were talking about how a 3800X is beaten by both a 9900K and 9700K in some scenarios and how hyperthreading was irrelevant for gaming.

I pointed out that those scenarios where the Intel chips are faster are unrealistic scenarios that very few people actually use. There is the high FPS esports titles on a high refresh rate monitor scenario where Intel is work a look but other than that nearly everyone is GPU bound and the difference isn't there.

Regarding the 3600 being a better buy for gaming, I'm in total agreement.
Edited by: "Minstadave" 30th Nov 2019
Spectral30/11/2019 11:18

Some people use their systems under extreme situations. Also the job of a …Some people use their systems under extreme situations. Also the job of a review is to show the entirety of a product, not just the cherry picked aspects you happen to be interested in. If they don't push them to the limits they aren't doing their job.


I'm not cherry picking. I'm saying the only relevant reviews are real world ones, 1080P benches with 2080Ti show a performance difference, but it's one that just doesnt matter to anyone.

It's like claiming SuperPi results show Intel is a better CPU. Utterly useless to the end user.
Edited by: "Minstadave" 30th Nov 2019
Minstadave30/11/2019 14:16

I'm not cherry picking. I'm saying the only relevant reviews are real …I'm not cherry picking. I'm saying the only relevant reviews are real world ones, 1080P benches with 2080Ti show a performance difference, but it's one that just doesnt matter to anyone.It's like claiming SuperPi results show Intel is a better CPU. Utterly useless to the end user.


Useless to you is not useless to everyone. You're just assuming every end user has your usage case.
Spectral30/11/2019 14:29

Useless to you is not useless to everyone. You're just assuming every end …Useless to you is not useless to everyone. You're just assuming every end user has your usage case.


No not at all.

I'm explaining that these low res/mega GPU benches that widely published to try and prove a CPUs superiority are utterly nonsense. 1440P/4K and a 2080TI - ok, I buy that. 1080P and a 1660 or 2060 - that's legit.

If you look at the Steam survey 0.5% of gamers have a 2080Ti, I can't see what resolution that specific group game at but I'm willing to bet a tiny percentage of them game at 1080P (although 1080P is still massively popular, I doubt it is with 2080Ti users). Despite so few gamers actually gaming at low resolution with an exotic halo graphics card these benches are widely used to prove a CPUs superiority. It's just not realistic or relevant.
Edited by: "Minstadave" 30th Nov 2019
Because its about the CPU not the games. The point is how do they perform maxed out under different types of workloads. One of the workloads being gaming because it uses different aspects of the CPU under load than something like cinebench. The point isn't how well the games run, the game is being used as a tool to put the CPU under as heavy a gaming load as possible as a measuring tool.
Edited by: "Spectral" 30th Nov 2019
Spectral30/11/2019 14:29

Useless to you is not useless to everyone. You're just assuming every end …Useless to you is not useless to everyone. You're just assuming every end user has your usage case.


Just about every PC is judged by gamers for being any good or not. Any PC with 8GB of RAM and decent 2070+ class of GPU is labelled good while a 32GB machine with a *50Ti class is useless. For gaming it’s not far off it. However not everyone games. All PC use is case specific.
Then of course how many people actually have a 75HZ+ screen? I’ve just bought a 32” 1440p 5ms 75HZ screen and is faster than anything I’ve had in 35+ years of gaming. While it doesn’t mean my usage isn’t unique it’s most likely average.
Anyone who needs, wants or can afford extremes will get the best. For everyone else they won’t notice or will rather lose 10% potential performance to save 25+% in cash. Which for many means a super card vs non-supper or similar.
Spectral30/11/2019 16:04

Because its about the CPU not the games. The point is how do they perform …Because its about the CPU not the games. The point is how do they perform maxed out under different types of workloads. One of the workloads being gaming because it uses different aspects of the CPU under load than something like cinebench. The point isn't how well the games run, the game is being used as a tool to put the CPU under as heavy a gaming load as possible as a measuring tool.


At the risk of repeating myself, if you have to use an unrealistic scenario to show one CPU is better than another, be it low res gaming on with a high end GPU or SuperPi or whatever, then the difference probably doesn't matter. It's just a bad comparison.
Minstadave01/12/2019 12:33

At the risk of repeating myself, if you have to use an unrealistic …At the risk of repeating myself, if you have to use an unrealistic scenario to show one CPU is better than another, be it low res gaming on with a high end GPU or SuperPi or whatever, then the difference probably doesn't matter. It's just a bad comparison.


Also repeating myself, it doesn't matter TO YOU. Not everyone uses the PC for the same things you are doing. Some tasks can hammer even the beefiest CPU's. The game is a tool to max out the CPU using a certain instruction set. In the same way something like Cinebench does with a different type of workload, same goes for SuperPi,etc. They don't only review these things for gamers.
Edited by: "Spectral" 1st Dec 2019
Spectral01/12/2019 13:13

Also repeating myself, it doesn't matter TO YOU. Not everyone uses the PC …Also repeating myself, it doesn't matter TO YOU. Not everyone uses the PC for the same things you are doing. Some tasks can hammer even the beefiest CPU's. The game is a tool to max out the CPU using a certain instruction set. In the same way something like Cinebench does with a different type of workload, same goes for SuperPi,etc. They don't only review these things for gamers.


I think the concept is probably too complicated for you.

If you want to review non gaming performance why in the world would a 1080P gaming bench be a good idea? Perhaps review non gaming performance with real world non gaming tasks, rather than fantasy gaming scenarios that aren't applicable to anyone?
Minstadave01/12/2019 14:03

I think the concept is probably too complicated for you.If you want to …I think the concept is probably too complicated for you.If you want to review non gaming performance why in the world would a 1080P gaming bench be a good idea? Perhaps review non gaming performance with real world non gaming tasks, rather than fantasy gaming scenarios that aren't applicable to anyone?


Because it allows a gaming type workload while also 100%ing the CPU. It seems you're the one who can't seem to grasp more than their own narrow view of computing. The data has its uses, its why they do it. Believe it or don't. I'm done trying to explain.
Minstadave30/11/2019 14:14

You were talking about how a 3800X is beaten by both a 9900K and 9700K in …You were talking about how a 3800X is beaten by both a 9900K and 9700K in some scenarios and how hyperthreading was irrelevant for gaming.


Again, you still dont seem to grasp the context of my initial response at all.

And no, I didn't say 'hyperthreading was irrelevant for gaming', I said that if you already have 8 physical cores, hyperthreading isn't gonna make any big difference with games *right now*, which is absolutely true.

You seem to be incapable of not misconstruing both what I said and my intentions for what I said. smh
Edited by: "Seanspeed" 1st Dec 2019
Seanspeed01/12/2019 18:01

Again, you still dont seem to grasp the context of my initial response at …Again, you still dont seem to grasp the context of my initial response at all. And no, I didn't say 'hyperthreading was irrelevant for gaming', I said that if you already have 8 physical cores, hyperthreading isn't gonna make any big difference with games *right now*, which is absolutely true. You seem to be incapable of not misconstruing both what I said and my intentions for what I said. smh



Hyperthreading is currently irrelevant for gaming pretty much - unless you're in a low core count CPU, in which case there is a benefit. All modern CPUs with 6 or 8 cores don't benefit from hyperthreading much when it comes to gaming. They may do in future. I believe we agree. AMD CPUs include hyperthreading at a price point where Intels don't, that is only a good thing. Plus Intels hyperthreading implementation is riddled with vulnerabilities.

But that wasn't what I was taking issue with and never has been. What I was taking issue with is the use of daft 1080P/2080Ti benches to show a difference between CPUs.
Edited by: "Minstadave" 1st Dec 2019
Spectral01/12/2019 14:49

Because it allows a gaming type workload while also 100%ing the CPU. It …Because it allows a gaming type workload while also 100%ing the CPU. It seems you're the one who can't seem to grasp more than their own narrow view of computing. The data has its uses, its why they do it. Believe it or don't. I'm done trying to explain.


You're just grasping at straws. You're now suggesting a unrealistic gaming benchmark is useful to show the difference between CPUs for non-gaming use when there are a multitude of real world non-gaming benchmarks out there to show that.

The data is irrelevant. Use a proper benchmark to show non-gaming performance if that's what you want to do.
Minstadave01/12/2019 18:25

Hyperthreading is currently irrelevant for gaming pretty much - unless …Hyperthreading is currently irrelevant for gaming pretty much - unless you're in a low core count CPU, in which case there is a benefit. All modern CPUs with 6 or 8 cores don't benefit from hyperthreading much when it comes to gaming. They may do in future. I believe we agree. AMD CPUs include hyperthreading at a price point where Intels don't, that is only a good thing. Plus Intels hyperthreading implementation is riddled with vulnerabilities. But that wasn't what I was taking issue with and never has been. What I was taking issue with is the use of daft 1080P/2080Ti benches to show a difference between CPUs.


There's nothing daft about it in the context of the original discussion, *again*. Really not sure what you're struggling with. It's not complicated and I spelled out it about as clear as possible. I was merely correcting a false claim. It was never my intention to push Intel CPU's or anything like that at all, which should also be clear if you read my posts properly. This is a site where people go to buy things and comment sections are often looked at for helpful information and I was trying to make sure correct information is being put out. Nothing more.
Edited by: "Seanspeed" 1st Dec 2019
Seanspeed01/12/2019 18:50

There's nothing daft about it in the context of the original discussion, …There's nothing daft about it in the context of the original discussion, *again*. Really not sure what you're struggling with. It's not complicated and I spelled out it about as clear as possible. I was merely correcting a false claim. It was never my intention to push Intel CPU's or anything like that at all, which should also be clear if you read my posts properly. This is a site where people go to buy things and comment sections are often looked at for helpful information and I was trying to make sure correct information is being put out. Nothing more.


If you want to go back to the start, the chap r200ti mentioned that the 3800X was faster than the 9900K in many tasks but more importantly when it comes to it's price point it is fairer to compare to the 9700K. Sensible point, never mentions gaming at all, lets be clear about that. The 3800X competes well with a 9900K in well multithreaded tasks, more importantly it destroys a 9700K in those tasks as Intel skimps on hyperthreading at that price point. No mention of gaming.

You then took a tangent and said in the specific scenario where a 9900K is faster than a 3800X, the 9700K is similarly faster. This is true, in non-GPU bound gaming benches a 9700K and a 9900K perform very similarly, and they are both faster than a 3800X. You've missed the tasks where the 9900K isn't faster than a 3800X, and in those tasks the 9700K is substantially further behind.

So your argument doesn't counter r200ti's post for 2 reasons, firstly because the hyperthreading you get on the 3800X at the £300ish price point is totally usable and beneficial in non-gaming tasks, and secondly, your non-GPU bound gaming scenarios don't really matter. The reality is in gaming, for nearly everyone, we're all GPU bound anyway. That was my point, explained at length.

The Spectral dribbled all over the thread trying to convince himself that somehow these low res gaming benchmarks were useful from a non-gaming CPU performance point of view. In reality there are far better ways to show non-gaming performance.
Edited by: "Minstadave" 1st Dec 2019
oh look the moron is still babbling
Spectral01/12/2019 19:40

oh look the moron is still babbling


Pick one thing you disagree with above and have a grown up discussion. It's a bit more interesting that way.
Edited by: "Minstadave" 1st Dec 2019
Minstadave01/12/2019 19:32

If you want to go back to the start, the chap r200ti mentioned that the …If you want to go back to the start, the chap r200ti mentioned that the 3800X was faster than the 9900K in many tasks but more importantly when it comes to it's price point it is fairer to compare to the 9700K. Sensible point, never mentions gaming at all, lets be clear about that. The 3800X competes well with a 9900K in well multithreaded tasks, more importantly it destroys a 9700K in those tasks as Intel skimps on hyperthreading at that price point. No mention of gaming.You then took a tangent and said in the specific scenario where a 9900K is faster than a 3800X, the 9700K is similarly faster. This is true, in non-GPU bound gaming benches a 9700K and a 9900K perform very similarly, and they are both faster than a 3800X. You've missed the tasks where the 9900K isn't faster than a 3800X, and in those tasks the 9700K is substantially further behind.So your argument doesn't counter r200ti's post for 2 reasons, firstly because the hyperthreading you get on the 3800X at the £300ish price point is totally usable and beneficial in non-gaming tasks, and secondly, your non-GPU bound gaming scenarios don't really matter. The reality is in gaming, for nearly everyone, we're all GPU bound anyway. That was my point, explained at length.The Spectral dribbled all over the thread trying to convince himself that somehow these low res gaming benchmarks were useful from a non-gaming CPU performance point of view. In reality there are far better ways to show non-gaming performance.


You are the embodiment of the human ego's endless ability to never admit it was in the wrong. I said the 9700k would beat the 3800X in the same situations the 9900k would beat the 3800X, which is completely true and I proved it. That's it.

You are a sad person who keeps trying to twist what I've said and my intentions cuz you CANNOT admit you've been wrong this whole time. I was not trying to push buying Intel or anything like that and I've made that super clear multiple times. That you keep ignoring this just demonstrates how dishonest you are as a person.
Seanspeed02/12/2019 03:54

You are the embodiment of the human ego's endless ability to never admit …You are the embodiment of the human ego's endless ability to never admit it was in the wrong. I said the 9700k would beat the 3800X in the same situations the 9900k would beat the 3800X, which is completely true and I proved it. That's it. You are a sad person who keeps trying to twist what I've said and my intentions cuz you CANNOT admit you've been wrong this whole time. I was not trying to push buying Intel or anything like that and I've made that super clear multiple times. That you keep ignoring this just demonstrates how dishonest you are as a person.


Did you even read what I posted? My issue wasn’t what with what you posted and never was. My original comment was how useless 1080P benches are. I agree with your point about the 9700K and the 9900k being able to beat the 3800X in that one pointless scenario. My comment was how pointless that scenario is. Where am I wrong?

Dishonesty, thanks for the Monday morning chuckle
Edited by: "Minstadave" 2nd Dec 2019
Post a comment

Deal posting newbie! This is CHokKA first deal post. Help out by leaving a posting tip or just to show your appreciation for their contribution.

Avatar
@
    Text