# AMD Ryzen 7 3700X



## W1zzard (Jul 7, 2019)

AMD's $330 Ryzen 7 3700X is an 8-core, 16-thread CPU that's clocked high enough to compete with Intel's offerings. Actually, its application performance matches even the more expensive Intel Core i9-9900K. Gaming performance has been increased significantly, too, thanks to the improved architecture and larger caches.

*Show full review*


----------



## birdie (Jul 7, 2019)

In terms of IPC Ryzen 3000 has completely defeated Intel which last happened over ten years ago with Athlon 64. The only thing which makes Intel faster is the frequency deficit of Ryzen CPUs. What a day to be alive!

I'm going to fully agree with W1zard is that the only two serious shortcomings of Ryzen 3000 are the absence of integrated graphics and the price which could have been a tad lower.

Meanwhile, it's finally high time to upgrade our aging Sandy Bridge/Ivy Bridge rigs. The first gen Ryzen wasn't really that much faster and now the performance increases are very palpable.

Bravo, AMD!


----------



## jesdals (Jul 7, 2019)

Well done !

Is the 3700x and 3800x actually dual cpus with two ryzen cores? Found the answer on page 1, might have skipped right to game testing


----------



## dirtyferret (Jul 7, 2019)

It's nice but according to TPU and techspot the ryzen chips are a fraction slower then the stock 9600k and 8700k in gaming...it's more of a good step up then a leap forward.


----------



## Wavetrex (Jul 7, 2019)

Overclocking is dead.
Press F to Pay Respects.

Long live Precision Boost Overdrive !


----------



## Raendor (Jul 7, 2019)

Underwhelming. Still can’t catch up with stock intel in gaming. And then add oc capabilities that 8700/9700/9900 have. This won’t send intel into panic and price reductions as we hoped.


----------



## FeelinFroggy (Jul 7, 2019)

The multi threaded applications are pretty nice, but for gaming this is a disappointment.  They are great CPUs and will game just as good as Intel, but they are not world beaters either.  The 3700x tops the 9400 by only 1 percent.  I get the 3700x is geared more towards a workstation and the 3600 will be a better value for gaming, but it is  still disappointing that AMDs top mainstream CPU basically ties the 9400 for gaming.


----------



## B-Real (Jul 7, 2019)

Very nice performance for lower price and cheap motherboard options (B450/X470, B350/X370), the B motherboards even for tuning the non X models. Thanks for the review!



FeelinFroggy said:


> The multi threaded applications are pretty nice, but for gaming this is a disappointment.  They are great CPUs and will game just as good as Intel, but they are not world beaters either.  The 3700x tops the 9400 by only 1 percent.  I get the 3700x is geared more towards a workstation and the 3600 will be a better value for gaming, but it is  still disappointing that AMDs top mainstream CPU basically ties the 9400 for gaming.


Man, the highest end GPU has a 5-6% advantage with the fastest Intel in FHD over a 3700X! How many of the 2080 Ti owners use it in FHD?  With 3900X, it's even less, 4%.



Raendor said:


> Underwhelming. Still can’t catch up with stock intel in gaming. And then add oc capabilities that 8700/9700/9900 have. This won’t send intel into panic and price reductions as we hoped.


OC capabilities of 8700/9700/9900? It's K, not non-K. Plus they can be only OCd in Z motherboards. Zen can be OCd in a B motherboard. And if you haven't realized it yet, AMD has been outselling Intel since Zen+ by 2 to 1. This will be more humiliating with Zen2, you can be sure of that.


----------



## Frick (Jul 7, 2019)

Spoiler






Raendor said:


> Underwhelming. Still can’t catch up with stock intel in gaming. And then add oc capabilities that 8700/9700/9900 have. This won’t send intel into panic and price reductions as we hoped.



THANK GOODNESS FOR YOU I was worried I had to write that.

This sucks completey,almost not better than an i3.







Pathetic and everyone buying one doesn't deserve being in the gene pool LET THE PURGE COMMENCE


THIS IS OBVIOUSLY SARCASM


----------



## Raendor (Jul 7, 2019)

Frick said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And looking at the chart, you could have the 9400F for months around €160. Not bad cpus forvwork by any means, and they can be used easily gor games. But it’s in no way a breakthrough it was advertised as for all that time.


----------



## Shatun_Bear (Jul 7, 2019)

dirtyferret said:


> It's nice but according to TPU and techspot the ryzen chips are a fraction slower then the stock 9600k and 8700k in gaming...it's more of a good step up then a leap forward.



Yeah, 1 and 2% difference @ 1440p is margin of error yet productivity this kills them two old 14nm chips. Don't be childish.


----------



## jabbadap (Jul 7, 2019)

Heh that intel like "TDP" though. Is there some motherboard OC features on or why it taking so much powah, when AMD is marketing it as 65W TDP processor.


----------



## dirtyferret (Jul 7, 2019)

Shatun_Bear said:


> Yeah, 1 and 2% difference @ 1440p is margin of error yet productivity this kills them two old 14nm chips. Don't be childish.


You should follow your own advice as I did not say anything negative about the CPUs.  Also 1440p gaming results are pointless hence why wizard posts 720p.


----------



## Ashtr1x (Jul 7, 2019)

Just joined on the eve of the Zen 2 7/7, aiming at 15 Year lead of Intel and their Conroe train, TPU articles are so good, very professional and the website design is fantastic too, Glad to be a member and finally I'll be getting a new PC this Fall, my first Desktop PC after P4 during my childhood, until now only Notebook gaming ofc only MXM socketed machines and rPGA Processors (Last of it's kind is with my machine, Intel Lynxpoint Haswell chipset, since they are now going away with all the propreitary MSI abominations and Clevo mutations and Dell smokechips (A51M GPUs failing). Intresting arena now in the desktop realm with this CPU battle.

Thanks for your work W1zzard and TPU staff, Always enjoyed your articles even at work lately... Wonder why the EVGA Z390 Dark was replaced with Maximus ? (Dark is on my list due to the sheer design and the Win7 support plus the HW class, ofc the X570 Taichi, Aorus Extreme, Crosshair VIII are also there)

Cheers


----------



## Frick (Jul 7, 2019)

Raendor said:


> And looking at the chart, you could have the 9400F for months around €160. Not bad cpus forvwork by any means, and they can be used easily gor games. But it’s in no way a breakthrough it was advertised as for all that time.



"Ok."

I'm so deep in meta now reality's gonna implode any moment.


----------



## Metroid (Jul 7, 2019)

Thanks for the review, as we can see in all honesty 9900k still faster but only when gpu is more required than the cpu, in games where cpu are most needed we see clearly 3700x takes the lead and at lower clock and when a gpu is most needed then the 9900k is best. For example rage 2.






Another good example


----------



## Shatun_Bear (Jul 7, 2019)

dirtyferret said:


> You should follow your own advice as I did not say anything negative about the CPUs.  Also 1440p gaming results are pointless hence why wizard posts 720p.



Who's gaming with these CPUs at 720p Einstein? Something something GPU bound something something is it? I don't care.

Even the 'king of gaming' hot and inefficient 9900K relic is only.........2 percent faster in 1440p! Intel desktop, pro and server marketshare disintegrating in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1....


----------



## Frick (Jul 7, 2019)

dirtyferret said:


> You should follow your own advice as I did not say anything negative about the CPUs.  Also 1440p gaming results are pointless hence why wizard posts 720p.



Wait why are they pointless? Isn't that what 720p tests are?


----------



## HwGeek (Jul 7, 2019)

*This doesn't look right- how 9900K consumes so little power?*


----------



## heky (Jul 7, 2019)

HwGeek said:


> *This doesn't look right- how 9900K consumes so little power?*


Probably because it throttles like mad!


----------



## B-Real (Jul 7, 2019)

Raendor said:


> And looking at the chart, you could have the 9400F for months around €160. Not bad cpus forvwork by any means, and they can be used easily gor games. But it’s in no way a breakthrough it was advertised as for all that time.


You know it was SARCASM from him, right? And you give him an upvote...  Nobody said Zen2 was going to be the new gaming king. This was your silly thoughts. Their graphs only showed they came very, VERY close to the best Intels. That's what they did, while having more cores for work for less money. And you can use cheaper mobos compared to Intel for OC (B450 vs. Z370) for non X models.


----------



## dirtyferret (Jul 7, 2019)

Shatun_Bear said:


> Who's gaming with these CPUs at 720p Einstein? Something something GPU bound something something is it? I don't care.
> 
> Even the 'king of gaming' hot and inefficient 9900K relic is only.........2 percent faster in 1440p! Intel desktop, pro and server marketshare disintegrating in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1....


Thanks for answering "do I know anything about cpu game testing?" With a resounding "no".


----------



## Shatun_Bear (Jul 7, 2019)

B-Real said:


> You know it was SARCASM from him, right? And you give him an upvote...  Nobody said Zen2 was going to be the new gaming king. This was your silly thoughts. Their graphs only showed they came very, VERY close to the best Intels. That's what they did, while having more cores for work for less money. And you can use cheaper mobos compared to Intel for OC (B450 vs. Z370) for non X models.



Exactly, the difference real-world 1440p and 4k is literally 1-2%. These CPUs only had to match their Intel counterparts and trounce them in productivity, and they've delivered exactly that.



dirtyferret said:


> Thanks for answering "do I know anything about cpu game testing?" With a resounding "no".



Something something GPU bound something something.


----------



## Papahyooie (Jul 7, 2019)

We need that Ryzen 5 3600 review! That's where it gets really interesting. Likely to get close/match the R7/i5 9600k in gaming, at a lower price point.


----------



## edbe (Jul 7, 2019)

All these numbers and the Windows 10 and Games and Apps are NOT even optimized for AMD 7NM Gen CPU & GPU..
Now in the coming, hope closed future the AMD numbers will grow a looooot.....
Wow amazing AMD !


----------



## moproblems99 (Jul 7, 2019)

Overall, they did a great job.  In gaming tests that matter, there is basic parity.  In productivity, they are doing well.  Pricing is cheaper.  What's not to like?

EDIT:

As a side note, is it confirmed that PBO and XFR are all fully supported on x470?

EDIT 2:

Just saw the other article and seems it is a mixed bag.


----------



## kings (Jul 7, 2019)

It's not a revolution and AMD has never said it would be either. People have to stop believing in everything that comes out of youtubers' mouths!

Overall they are good CPUs, they don´t beat Intel across the board, but they are extremely competitive and that's the most important thing!


----------



## jinxjx (Jul 7, 2019)

Nice review but i wonder why the new Radeon RX 5700 XT wasnt used for shittzz and giggles ?


----------



## ps000000 (Jul 7, 2019)

what about leaked memory oc.

5000+ ,1T on ddr4 on gotlike x570


----------



## catulitechup (Jul 7, 2019)

Nice review however lacks of some games included in other tests case: anno 1800, ace combat 7, darksiders III, devil may cry 5, divinity original sin II, shadow of war, monster hunter world, rainbow six siege, dragon quest XI and others


----------



## Raendor (Jul 7, 2019)

B-Real said:


> You know it was SARCASM from him, right? And you give him an upvote...  Nobody said Zen2 was going to be the new gaming king. This was your silly thoughts. Their graphs only showed they came very, VERY close to the best Intels. That's what they did, while having more cores for work for less money. And you can use cheaper mobos compared to Intel for OC (B450 vs. Z370) for non X models.


I can’t upvote a sarcastic post now? Lol. No, zen2 was hyped as intel destroyer, which didn’t happen at all. You can try downplay it, but the only silly thing was fanboyish hype you’re trying to diminish now.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jul 7, 2019)

catulitechup said:


> Nice review however lacks of some games included in other tests case: anno 1800, ace combat 7, darksiders III, devil may cry 5, divinity original sin II, shadow of war, monster hunter world, rainbow six siege, dragon quest XI and others



Maybe you should ask @W1zzard  if you could become his intern and help him test?


----------



## Tartaros (Jul 7, 2019)

I got a question @W1zzard, are the intel benchmarks from before the latest patches against vulnerabilities? If not, is there any plan to update them?


----------



## bug (Jul 7, 2019)

Great value, but comes with two rather big weak spots. The first was already known, IF gobbles up power making these ineficient at idle or light loads and really hard to adapt for mobile. The second, they are still bested by the humble 8600k in gaming. And while the margin is pretty much negligible today, it gives Intel an easy way out if they improve their IPC even slightly in their next generation (yup, I'm one of those still hoping I'll live to see Intel's next architecture  ).
And while the 3700X is priced above what I'm willing to pay, I may be tempted by a 3600(X), but I need to see some reviews first. Both for CPU and mobos.

Edit: Again, this throws me back in Athlon days. The original two iterations were ok, but once AMD reached Palomino, that's when the legends (XP1600+, XP2500+ and later 64bits and dual core CPUs) were born.


----------



## birdie (Jul 7, 2019)

Tartaros said:


> I got a question @W1zzard, are the intel benchmarks from before the latest patches against vulnerabilities? If not, is there any plan to update them?



From the review:

*Software:    Windows 10 Professional 64-bit
Version 1903 (May 2019 Update)*

which means all the security patches for Intel CPUs are applied. There has been a microcode update quite recently but I'm not sure it will change the performance by more than a few percent.


----------



## FYFI13 (Jul 7, 2019)

Tartaros said:


> I got a question @W1zzard, are the intel benchmarks from before the latest patches against vulnerabilities? If not, is there any plan to update them?


I believe he said that he re-ran all of the tests for this review, so OS and systems should be up to date and patched.


----------



## dirtyferret (Jul 7, 2019)

Papahyooie said:


> We need that Ryzen 5 3600 review! That's where it gets really interesting. Likely to get close/match the R7/i5 9600k in gaming, at a lower price point.


Gamers Nexus has a review for the 3600 up right now, nothing unexpected from the review.

_The i5-9600K outperforms the 3600 in most of our game benchmarks as games have been slow to adapt to CPUs with more than 8 threads, and the 5GHz+ overclocking potential of the 9600K makes it an even clearer winner for exclusively gaming, but the R5 3600 is the more versatile and potentially cheaper option at $200 MSRP._


----------



## Tartaros (Jul 7, 2019)

birdie said:


> From the review:
> 
> *Software:    Windows 10 Professional 64-bit
> Version 1903 (May 2019 Update)*
> ...





FYFI13 said:


> I believe he said that he re-ran all of the tests for this review, so OS and systems should be up to date and patched.


Thank you.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jul 7, 2019)

ps000000 said:


> what about leaked memory oc.
> 
> 5000+ ,1T on ddr4 on gotlike x570


What about it?

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1147871085150363651


----------



## Bluescreendeath (Jul 7, 2019)

Raendor said:


> Underwhelming. Still can’t catch up with stock intel in gaming. And then add oc capabilities that 8700/9700/9900 have. This won’t send intel into panic and price reductions as we hoped.


Neither Intel nor AMD really cares about gaming that much. Gaming is for a tiny segment of the market. These companies make most of their money selling to businesses and general consumers that don't care about gaming, and iirc most of the profits are in the server cpu market. And even among gamers, many if not most gaming consumers probably buy based on which company has better marketing rather than performance charts anyways.


----------



## bug (Jul 7, 2019)

Bluescreendeath said:


> Neither Intel nor AMD really cares about gaming that much. Gaming is for a tiny segment of the market. These companies make most of their money selling to businesses and consumers that don't care about gaming, and iirc most of the profits are in the server cpu market. And even among gamers, they probably mostly buy bases on which company has better marketing rather than performance charts anyways.


Yeah, don't make that mistake. Whoever doesn't care about gaming is either using a laptop or their smartphone. Businesses are another story, but those are probably still mesmerized by Intel's ME. A similar cancer to MS's AD, imho.


----------



## rawadinozor (Jul 7, 2019)

Guys am i missing something, when will the 3800x be released?
i game on 1440p so i am going AMD for sure, 1-2 % doesn't really make a difference, i think i will skip pcie4 for now.


----------



## yotano211 (Jul 7, 2019)

bug said:


> Yeah, don't make that mistake. Whoever doesn't care about gaming is either using a laptop or their smartphone. Businesses are another story, but those are probably still mesmerized by Intel's ME. A similar cancer to MS's AD, imho.


Dont say that people who game on laptops dont care because some of us do care. I've only gamed on laptops for the past 10 years and I'll continue with my laptop for the future. But I am not a normal laptop gamer, I usually get higher spec-ed out laptops.


----------



## bug (Jul 7, 2019)

yotano211 said:


> Dont say that people who game on laptops dont care because some of us do care. I've only gamed on laptops for the past 10 years and I'll continue with my laptop for the future. But I am not a normal laptop gamer, I usually get higher spec-ed out laptops.


I only said who doesn't care about gaming probably isn't using a desktop in 2019. The logical implication is not a commutative operation 



rawadinozor said:


> Guys am i missing something, when will the 3800x be released?
> i game on 1440p so i am going AMD for sure, 1-2 % doesn't really make a difference, i think i will skip pcie4 for now.


Everything but the 3950X is released today. But both here and on Anand it would seem AMD only sampled the 3700X and 3900X. Looking around for the 3600 and 3600X myself. 3600X looks neat, but the 3600 looks like it would be pretty close for 25% less $$$.


----------



## B-Real (Jul 7, 2019)

Raendor said:


> And looking at the chart, you could have the 9400F for months around €160. Not bad cpus forvwork by any means, and they can be used easily gor games. But it’s in no way a breakthrough it was advertised as for all that time.


You know you say by that that a 9400F makes 9900K obsolete too, right?


----------



## FeelinFroggy (Jul 7, 2019)

B-Real said:


> You know you say by that that a 9400F makes 9900K obsolete too, right?



For gaming there is little reason to get a 9900k.


----------



## bug (Jul 7, 2019)

FeelinFroggy said:


> For gaming there is little reason to get a 9900k.


If you look at Anand, for many things this CPU is better suited than the 3900X. As has been the norm for a while, going core crazy is not the smart route if your usual workflow isn't that multithreaded.


----------



## Xzibit (Jul 7, 2019)

I find it crazy how little power the 3700X uses.


----------



## Shatun_Bear (Jul 7, 2019)

Raendor said:


> I can’t upvote a sarcastic post now? Lol. No, zen2 was hyped as intel destroyer, which didn’t happen at all. You can try downplay it, but the only silly thing was fanboyish hype you’re trying to diminish now.



AMD has taken the IPC lead over Intel for the first time in *FIFTEEN YEARS*. They've delivered a CPU (3900X) that is significantly faster than Intel's *$1200 7920X* in rendering and productivity tasks for less than half the price. At the same time, said CPU is within margin of error (2%) of Intel's very fastest 'gaming king' 9900K in 1440p gaming...

So try to downplay this release all you want, nobody in the market for a new CPU today is going to buy it if they know about CPUs...


----------



## bug (Jul 7, 2019)

Xzibit said:


> I find it crazy how little power the 3700X uses.


Something doesn't add up there. The 3900X has 50% more cores and 50% more power draw? I mean, it should use lower than that, the IF being in a chiplet on its own. And then there's the 3600X with fewer cores and slightly higher frequencies, yet deemed a 95W part? I expect we'll have some follow-up articles, because there may be more to this than meets the eye.

But yes, if it wasn't for the price, I'd like to run 8 cores within that power budget


----------



## Cataclysm_ZA (Jul 7, 2019)

Bluescreendeath said:


> Neither Intel nor AMD really cares about gaming that much. Gaming is for a tiny segment of the market.



Gaming is the only growing segment of the PC market currently. Everything else is shrinking, but gaming continues to climb in revenues and profitability which is why more OEMs and ODMs are putting more stock in higher-priced products and RGB. 47% of NVIDIA's revenue comes from GeForce products as of Q1 2019.

Gaming is a trillion-dollar business. It's not a small slice of anything. It's bigger than the global movie industry.



Bluescreendeath said:


> These companies make most of their money selling to businesses and general consumers that don't care about gaming, and iirc most of the profits are in the server cpu market



With desktops in decline, Intel sells more mobile processors than they do desktop SKUs, and 53% of their revenue comes from the Client Computing Group. NVIDIA definitely makes more money selling to business customers for professional uses, and machine learning is taking off for them.

As for the server thing, Intel sells fewer server SKUs than they do desktop SKUs, and that's dwarfed by notebook sales. When they had their shortage hit critical mass, just focusing on server and high-value parts to meet demand still saw them lose large chunks of revenue.



Bluescreendeath said:


> And even among gamers, many if not most gaming consumers probably buy based on which company has better marketing rather than performance charts anyways.



Marketing plays into gamers' inherent bias when picking a GPU, but they're still shopping according to their budget and the level of performance they want. They're still looking at reviews, or asking people who have read reviews what to get.


----------



## John Naylor (Jul 7, 2019)

I think we have to look at CPUs in a  different way ... there's a whole horde of tests being done, but I have to still question the relevance.  maybe I'm not looking at it right, so perhaps I can get educated a bit.

Synthetics - If your thing is to go on web sites and post "Post your [insert name of benchmark] scored here threads, pick the CPU that's used on the site you tend to post on.  It's not something that has ever entered into our selection process.

Rendering - If rendering is your big application, by all means Ryzen should be your choice.   In 26 year's we have done 2 rendering builds intended to take 3D AutoCAD drawings and make renderings out of them.   While extremely important to those in the trade, I don't see how it is relevant to the typical "I wanna game, stream, edit videos now and then" crowd.

Game / Software Development  - pretty much as above.

Web Browsing - I have never had a slow web browsing experience.  Intel has a slight edge here but the differences (0.007 seconds)  are invisible to the normal user.

Science and Research - A very small market set here, but if you're in this field, I wouldn't be bothering with $350 - $500 processors.

Office Suites - Having a script complete a series of tasks a hundredth of a second is beyound a user's ability to notice, and if each execution within the script requires user input,.  They trade wins here but I see no value to the results.

Photoshop - Intel has an edge here but again so what ?  The difference is far too small to base CPU selection on.

Premiere  - Here the difference is  almost 9% .... and we're talking full seconds here.,  If ou are doing any significant amount of editing, gotta like Intel here.

Photogrammetry - If you are doing this, then your also doing AutoCAD ... and if you are doing AutoCAD you are using Intel.

Text Recognition - Here with the 3700 sitting between 2 Intels price wise, the choice will be driven by budget, got $500, youd to the 9900k. if less, depending on how much.

Server Workstation - If ya doing any of those things on a  regular basis, Ryzen is your CPU

Compression - Ok, I download a utility, I uncompress maybe in a year I'll do another one.  So I don't care, if you do this all day, pick Ryzen.

Encryption - Go older Ryzen or Intel 9900k if ya do this thing

Encoding - Again, if this is ya thing, go Ryzen ... if it's MPS's then Intel.

Gaming - No change in rankings here, Intel has the edge but advantage is smaller and nears nothing at hi res.

I didn't really see a lot in Ryzen to date other than the 2700X .... the 3700 is even better.  But don't just figure oh there's 15 teats and it wins X of them ... makethe decision on performance that you actually do ona  daily basis.... the others aren't helping you.


----------



## bug (Jul 7, 2019)

John Naylor said:


> I didn't really see a lot in Ryzen to date other than the 2700X .... the 3700 is even better.  But don't just figure oh there's 15 teats and it wins X of them ... makethe decision on performance that you actually do ona  daily basis.... the others aren't helping you.


Yeah, well, that kind of the whole point of presenting results in various categories.

As I have said before, back in the single core CPUs things were simpler: the faster core was the better pick (well, except Intel clones used to yield competitive integer performance and not so competitive floating point). That held true for dual cores as well. But since we got to 4+ cores, you really need to be paying attention when selecting a CPU.


----------



## gupsterg (Jul 7, 2019)

@W1zzard thanks great review, I was wondering the section in review where you show clock frequency analysis what is used to load the CPU for various thread count?


----------



## W1zzard (Jul 7, 2019)

gupsterg said:


> @W1zzard thanks great review, I was wondering the section in review where you show clock frequency analysis what is used to load the CPU for various thread count?


I wrote my own app for that, which lets me control the # of threads and log clocks. The load is just some math calculation floating point, no avx or fma. I feel that represents the typical use case for the majority of people


----------



## gupsterg (Jul 7, 2019)

Cheers, same app used in say TR2 reviews?

Also wondering cooling used in 3xxx reviews?


----------



## arbiter (Jul 8, 2019)

So if both chips used the same node wonder what would be performance then. Smaller nodes tend to gain performance and efficiency so as good as this looks if Intel gets down same size node probably gonna take lead.


----------



## phanbuey (Jul 8, 2019)

is there a 3800x coming? I don't see any reviews of it.


----------



## moproblems99 (Jul 8, 2019)

arbiter said:


> So if both chips used the same node wonder what would be performance then. Smaller nodes tend to gain performance and efficiency so as good as this looks if Intel gets down same size node probably gonna take lead.



Well, if rumors are true, clock speeds are a problem so any 'performance' gain they got will be out the window.  

I don't know why people focus on the node so much.  Node has no direct impact on IPC.  If you were to transpose what-ever Lake arch onto the same node as Zen 2, it is still going to have the same IPC.  The only difference in performance is what is it going to be able to get for clocks.  Efficiency may not increase either because Intel is maxing out this uArch and those clocks are destroying efficiency.  Zen+ to Zen 2 didn't seem to have much efficiency improvement so the same could hold true for whenever Intel manages to shift nodes.



phanbuey said:


> is there a 3800x coming? I don't see any reviews of it.



I didn't even see any stores with stock.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jul 8, 2019)

phanbuey said:


> is there a 3800x coming? I don't see any reviews of it.


AMD didn't sample any parts, same for the 3600/X.


----------



## Naito (Jul 8, 2019)

I don't get the disappointment surrounding a maximum of ~10% at 720p and ~6% at 1080p disadvantage of FPS vs Intel!? This thing is $150 cheaper (on paper) than a 9900K and offers the same core/thread count and more cache. The same goes for the 3900X - only $20 more than 9900k, 4x the cache and 8 more threads!

And let's not get started on the all the vulnerabilities discovered in Intel architectures as of late...


----------



## phanbuey (Jul 8, 2019)

Naito said:


> I don't get the disappointment surrounding a maximum of ~10% at 720p and ~6% at 1080p disadvantage of FPS vs Intel!? This thing is $150 cheaper (on paper) than a 9900K and offers the same core/thread count and more cache. The same goes for the 3900X - only $20 more than 9900k, 4x the cache and 8 more threads!
> 
> And let's not get started on the all the vulnerabilities discovered in Intel architectures as of late...


the hype built it up to match / beat... the fact that it's still behind on a smaller node in games vs ringbus is a dissapoint but not a huge one for the $$..

The real nutkick is at the datacenters/cloud/everywhere else where the security vulnerabilities are a thing and where intel loses in every way on performance.


----------



## Crackong (Jul 8, 2019)

phanbuey said:


> the hype built it up to match / beat... the fact that it's still behind on a smaller node in games vs ringbus is a dissapoint but not a huge one for the $$..
> 
> The real nutkick is at the datacenters/cloud/everywhere else where the security vulnerabilities are a thing and where intel loses in every way on performance.


^That

Server parts don't overclock and have strict power limits.
These Zen2 CPUs with such a high performance/watt ratio is definitely going to hit hard on the server market.
Those 350W+ TDP monstrosities from Intel is nowhere gonna compete with EPYC 2 having 64 cores at 225W TDP.

Server market is the real meat.


----------



## JalleR (Jul 8, 2019)

Xzibit said:


> I find it crazy how little power the 3700X uses.


Why dont you use the Chart from the TPU Review ?


----------



## Xzibit (Jul 8, 2019)

JalleR said:


> Why dont you use the Chart from the TPU Review ?



The board hes using.

*Test System "Zen 2" 
Motherboard: ASRock X570 Taichi*



			
				Tom's Hardware said:
			
		

> a test that _really_ stands out! *ASRock’s X570 Taichi consumed far more power at full load*, and a quick search for the cause revealed that this board, and *only this board*, was running the 3700X at 1.31V and 4.1GHz under Prime95 small-FFTs. The other boards were running less than 1.2V, at 3.9 to 4.0 GHz in this test.



On average its consuming 30 watts more and 50-60 watts on the stress test.


----------



## medi01 (Jul 8, 2019)

W1zzard said:


> AMD's $330 Ryzen 7 3700X is an 8-core, 16-thread CPU that's clocked high enough to compete with Intel's offerings. Actually, its application performance matches even the more expensive Intel Core i9-9900K. Gaming performance has been increased significantly, too, thanks to the improved architecture and larger caches.


A wish, if I may, for "when there is time to experiment".  
Could we see the impact that going with Ryzen CPU has on relative GPU performance? I realize it could be quite a bit of work, but only 2060/2060s/2070/2070s vs V56/V64/5700/5700XT (or even half of those) would do.


----------



## RichF (Jul 8, 2019)

birdie said:


> From the review:
> 
> *Software:    Windows 10 Professional 64-bit
> Version 1903 (May 2019 Update)*
> ...


Does it? I read that some security patches for Intel-only vulnerabilities were explicitly *not* included by default due to Microsoft's decision to sacrifice security for performance on Intel. Users have to manually find and install the patch or patches. This applies also to the disabling of hyperthreading, although perhaps that can be done in BIOS only.

Regardless, running 1903 does not guarantee that all of the Intel security flaws have been patched. Anandtech used 1903 in its review and explicitly said it *did not* have the fixes enabled for a bunch of the latest Intel-only flaws and their performance regressions.

I have yet to see a single review from any review site that says that it has used all of the security mitigations, let alone one that  has shown the data for performance with them and without them.

It seems the industry is content to pretend that these security flaws don't exist and/or don't matter. They do matter and all of these Ryzen reviews should include the data.


----------



## moproblems99 (Jul 8, 2019)

RichF said:


> It seems the industry is content to pretend that these security flaws don't exist and/or don't matter. They do matter and all of these Ryzen reviews should include the data.



I agree that these security issues shouldn't be swept under the rug but I disagree that these issues are of particular concern to the average home user at this point.  Let's be honest, TPU is largely aimed at the hobviest/enthusiast and makes the most sense to have setups that will mirror that.

I would love to see reviews with all patches on vs all patches off but I also like to see people have a work-life balance.


----------



## Octopuss (Jul 8, 2019)

Found my new CPU, finally.

I'm curious though, how much do newer steppings affect CPUs (in general)? I am definitely going to wait until until the whole platform matures a little.


----------



## dirtyferret (Jul 8, 2019)

John Naylor said:


> I think we have to look at CPUs in a  different way ... there's a whole horde of tests being done, but I have to still question the relevance.  maybe I'm not looking at it right, so perhaps I can get educated a bit.
> 
> Synthetics - If your thing is to go on web sites and post "Post your [insert name of benchmark] scored here threads, pick the CPU that's used on the site you tend to post on.  It's not something that has ever entered into our selection process.
> 
> ...



Grandma needs an octacore CPU with 16 threads!  Sure she only looks at facebook now and emails Nigerian princes needing quick cash to liberate their million dollar assets but maybe she starts playing PUBG.  Maybe she says her old 19" 1600x900 monitor just isn't good enough and she needs a 27" 1440p 144hz monitor with g-sync.  Then she says she wants to stream herself playing PUBG while playing PUBG and she needs to download all her MS updates at once that she has held off on for over a year.  Then she says she wants to download the entire Lord of the rings Trilogy in 4K while playing and streaming PUBG, while downloading her MS updates, and her AV decides to do a scan.  

Are you seriously going to let Grandma do all that and suffer through .1% micro stutter?


----------



## TheUn4seen (Jul 8, 2019)

Well, it's good that AMD is catching up. As for this particular CPU, it's not the best option for most people. I, for one, care mostly about the realtime tasks - games, daily work. I couldn't care less if a video takes 12 hours instead of 10 to encode, so even the 100$ cheaper 9600k is a better performing option. Even more so when overclocked. The high platform power draw is also a concern for people building SFF systems - there are quite a few good Z390 mini-ITX boards which handle overclocking on par with full ATX ones and very few (if any) comparable boards for AMD.


----------



## TheDeeGee (Jul 8, 2019)

X570 users started to report unbearable noise from the chipset cooler.

3000 up to 6000 RPM.

Yep, waiting for B550 as X470 seem to have issues getting memory above 2133 MHz.


----------



## bug (Jul 8, 2019)

TheUn4seen said:


> Well, it's good that AMD is catching up. As for this particular CPU, it's not the best option for most people. I, for one, care mostly about the realtime tasks - games, daily work. I couldn't care less if a video takes 12 hours instead of 10 to encode, so even the 100$ cheaper 9600k is a better performing option. Even more so when overclocked. The high platform power draw is also a concern for people building SFF systems - there are quite a few good Z390 mini-ITX boards which handle overclocking on par with full ATX ones and very few (if any) comparable boards for AMD.


Eh, let's not exaggerate. This CPU is not for everyone (not one CPU is), but it's a great CPU whether you need it or not.


----------



## TheUn4seen (Jul 8, 2019)

bug said:


> Eh, let's not exaggerate. This CPU is not for everyone (not one CPU is), but it's a great CPU whether you need it or not.



Don't get me wrong, it's a good CPU. It's just "meh" - not the best performance, not the best value, nothing to write home about. Ryzen is overhyped to hell and back, compared to Bartons and Thortons of the "good ol' days", but in the end they turn out to be just "good enough for some people". So: meh.


----------



## bug (Jul 8, 2019)

TheUn4seen said:


> Don't get me wrong, it's a good CPU. It's just "meh" - not the best performance, not the best value, nothing to write home about. Ryzen is overhyped to hell and back, compared to Bartons and Thortons of the "good ol' days", but in the end they turn out to be just "good enough for some people". So: meh.


The Bartons and Thortons of old beat Intel by offering better IPC within a lower power envelope. Zen beats Intel by offering more cores within a lower power envelope. Ok, everybody benefits from higher IPC and not everyone needs a ton of cores, but other than that, the situation is pretty much identical to me.


----------



## B-Real (Jul 8, 2019)

FeelinFroggy said:


> For gaming there is little reason to get a 9900k.


I know. Tell it the blue fans too.


----------



## bug (Jul 8, 2019)

B-Real said:


> I know. Tell it the blue fans too.


If you're a blue fan, you're not about the number of cores anyway


----------



## RealNeil (Jul 9, 2019)

I have a 9700K and an 8700K. (both are fine with me)
I plan to get an AMD Ryzen 7-3700X for the crucial third gaming PC.


----------



## Turmania (Jul 9, 2019)

I think AMD has done a good job. A step on the right direction but to say it is a big jump would be stretching it. Competition is good for us consumers.


----------



## bug (Jul 9, 2019)

RealNeil said:


> I have a 9700K and an 8700K. (both are fine with me)
> I plan to get an AMD Ryzen 7-3700X for the crucial third gaming PC.


That's interesting, because either of the CPUs you have right now are better for gaming than the 3700X. Not by much, but since you said "crucial" I'm thinking every bit counts.


----------



## RealNeil (Jul 9, 2019)

bug said:


> That's interesting, because either of the CPUs you have right now are better for gaming than the 3700X. Not by much, but since you said "crucial" I'm thinking every bit counts.



Numbers. Once you pass a certain performance delta, you look for price advantages coupled with the desire to keep Intel's competition alive and well.
I have to have three working decent gaming PCs here for when my kids and grandkids are here. Supporting AMD's efforts is a no brainer when they've advanced as much as they have with this release.


----------



## kapone32 (Jul 9, 2019)

Raendor said:


> Underwhelming. Still can’t catch up with stock intel in gaming. And then add oc capabilities that 8700/9700/9900 have. This won’t send intel into panic and price reductions as we hoped.



Clock speed is not everything. Please watch the Tech deals video on R5 3600x vs 8700K and you may retract that statement.


----------



## dir_d (Jul 9, 2019)

That was a good video and it proves that anyone that does not already have a motherboard for a 8700k they should move to Ryzen.


----------



## HD64G (Jul 13, 2019)

For anyone who bought any of the Zen2 CPUs and cannot clock @ their official boost clocks check below (hint: it's caused by a BIOS default setting if the latest chipset driver is installed)

View attachment 126753


----------



## RealNeil (Jul 13, 2019)

This is why I am waiting to buy into the new ZEN platform. Time will squeeze out any little issues for me first. Then I will jump.


----------



## Octopuss (Jul 13, 2019)

RealNeil said:


> This is why I am waiting to buy into the new ZEN platform. Time will squeeze out any little issues for me first. Then I will jump.


 I'm thinking about waiting for the next stepping. By then even the X570 boards should be somewhat better me thinks.


----------



## bug (Jul 13, 2019)

RealNeil said:


> This is why I am waiting to buy into the new ZEN platform. Time will squeeze out any little issues for me first. Then I will jump.


Yes, teething problems aren't something Zen2 invented. I would have been bitten by the no-boot on Linux, had I jumped onto this one. I'm going to give this a few more months, see if motherboards come down in price a little.


----------



## RealNeil (Jul 13, 2019)

bug said:


> Yes, teething problems aren't something Zen2 invented.





Octopuss said:


> I'm thinking about waiting for the next stepping. By then even the X570 boards should be somewhat better me thinks.



The leading edge is sometimes the bleeding edge. Although this sure looks good to me.


----------



## mastrdrver (Jul 17, 2019)

@W1zzard In the conclusion it says that the 3950x is a 32 core cpu, unless you know something different I think you meant 16 core, right?


----------



## W1zzard (Jul 17, 2019)

mastrdrver said:


> @W1zzard In the conclusion it says that the 3950x is a 32 core cpu, unless you know something different I think you meant 16 core, right?


Whoops  Fixed, congrats for being the first to notice this after close to half a million people


----------



## markfresh (Jul 21, 2019)

Hi, im new to cpu OC only done a bit with GPU, i was just reading on the test with the voltage at 1.4 the result was 4.225.
I just went into ryzen master and selected PBO and got the same result , is this the correct way to do it without having to manual OC?


----------



## bug (Jul 21, 2019)

markfresh said:


> Hi, im new to cpu OC only done a bit with GPU, i was just reading on the test with the voltage at 1.4 the result was 4.225.
> I just went into ryzen master and selected PBO and got the same result , is this the correct way to do it without having to manual OC?


Don't worry about overclocking these, they overclock themselves excellently. No reviewer was able to get more than 5% or so after overclocking compared to default settings so it's really not worth the hassle.


----------



## thebluebumblebee (Aug 3, 2019)

Sure wish the Ryzen 7 1700, also at 65 watts, would have been included in the comparisons, especially the Energy Usage charts.


----------



## W1zzard (Aug 3, 2019)

thebluebumblebee said:


> Sure wish the Ryzen 7 1700, also at 65 watts, would have been included in the comparisons, especially the Energy Usage charts.


Don't have the 1700, amd never sampled it


----------



## Space Lynx (Aug 12, 2019)

birdie said:


> In terms of IPC Ryzen 3000 has completely defeated Intel which last happened over ten years ago with Athlon 64. The only thing which makes Intel faster is the frequency deficit of Ryzen CPUs. What a day to be alive!
> 
> I'm going to fully agree with W1zard is that the only two serious shortcomings of Ryzen 3000 are the absence of integrated graphics and the price which could have been a tad lower.
> 
> ...



I'm lifting the CPU cooler of the 3700x in my hand right now, this is no small heatsink my friends, it is very heavy, lots of copper, RGB fan, and a switch to set it manually to high or low with no software. that alone is worth $30.  so I don't think the price should be any lower really. $330 is pretty fair considering all things.


----------



## Camper7 (Jan 6, 2020)

_"Still not as fast as Intel in gaming"_ 

This is because most of the developers use Intel platforms for programming, not the CPU itself.
Other developers as Massive Entertainment in Sweden use AMD-platforms and their games is optimized for AMD-cpu's. So this line as conclusion is just wasted and wrong way to see things.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jan 6, 2020)

Camper7 said:


> _"Still not as fast as Intel in gaming"_
> 
> This is because most of the developers use Intel platforms for programming, not the CPU itself.
> Other developers as Massive Entertainment in Sweden use AMD-platforms and their games is optimized for AMD-cpu's. So this line as conclusion is just wasted and wrong way to see things.



actually with latest bios, drivers, firmware, etc - new benches are showing considerable gains against intel even at 1080p. ryzen 4000 series is going to decimate intel.


----------



## kapone32 (Jan 6, 2020)

lynx29 said:


> actually with latest bios, drivers, firmware, etc - new benches are showing considerable gains against intel even at 1080p. ryzen 4000 series is going to decimate intel.



I was watching a video done by Hardware Unboxed and they used a 3800x with different RAM and DDR 4000 gave the CPU just as much FPS as the 9900K OC to 5 GHZ using the same kits in most games.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jan 6, 2020)

kapone32 said:


> I was watching a video done by Hardware Unboxed and they used a 3800x with different RAM and DDR 4000 gave the CPU just as much FPS as the 9900K OC to 5 GHZ using the same kits in most games.



that's my point yes. I can confirm as well, as I have a ryzen 3600 with 1:1 if ram at 3800 cas 16.  it's a beast


----------



## Magistar (Jan 29, 2020)

*@W1zzard *So far this is the only review I have found where the 3700X is beating the 9700K/9900K in a few games. Now for Rage 2 and Wolfenstein II I simply could not find another review. But rockpaperscissor tested Shadow of the tombraider too and they showed results that make more sense.






vs





Did you check if something fishy was happening during your testing? I can't really think of a reason why 8c/16t 4.4 Ghz would beat the same core/thread count running at higher clocks with similar IPC.


----------



## W1zzard (Jan 29, 2020)

We're using gameplay, not the benchmark. I also vaguely remember that SOTTR received a patch and suddenly performance improved A LOT for Ryzens, maybe they didn't install that patch.

It seems unlikely that so many Ryzens beating Intel is due to a measurement error/random event


----------



## dirtyferret (Jan 29, 2020)

W1zzard said:


> We're using gameplay, not the benchmark. I also vaguely remember that SOTTR received a patch and suddenly performance improved A LOT for Ryzens, maybe they didn't install that patch.
> 
> It seems unlikely that so many Ryzens beating Intel is due to a measurement error/random event


I'm not doubting your finding with tomb raider but several sites did have the 9700k outperforming the 3700x on benchmarks.  I can't recall seeing a game have such a drastic difference between benchmark results and gameplay

kit guru has a large gap between CPUs 








						AMD Ryzen 9 3900X & Ryzen 7 3700X ‘Zen 2’ CPU Review - KitGuru
					

AMD has launched its Zen 2 architecture in the form of the Ryzen 3000 processors. Slotting directly




					www.kitguru.net
				




forbes (their reviewer also reviews for bit-tech) had the 9700k about 8% ahead of the ryzen 3700x (but close to 18% increase on 99th%)








						AMD Ryzen 9 3900X and Ryzen 7 3700X Review: Old Ryzen Owners Look Away Now
					

AMD knocks it out the park with 3rd Gen Ryzen, but there are some catches




					www.forbes.com


----------



## Magistar (Feb 3, 2020)

Any guess as to why it would outperform in the first place? AFAIK IPC is similar between AMD and Intel and so I see no logical reason how a 4.25 Ghz fixed 3700X with 8c/16t would beat a 9900K that is probably running at x46+ with an identical core/thread count.


----------



## Papahyooie (Feb 4, 2020)

Magistar said:


> Any guess as to why it would outperform in the first place? AFAIK IPC is similar between AMD and Intel and so I see no logical reason how a 4.25 Ghz fixed 3700X with 8c/16t would beat a 9900K that is probably running at x46+ with an identical core/thread count.



Average IPC is "similar" perhaps, but not the same. Also keep in mind that IPC isn't a static number. A processor doesn't have a single IPC number, that's a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept. It depends on what you're doing and what program you're running.


----------

