# AMD Ryzen 9 3900X



## W1zzard (Jul 7, 2019)

The flagship of AMD's new Ryzen 3000 lineup is the Ryzen 9 3900X, which is a 12-core, 24-thread monster. Never before have we seen such power on a desktop platform. Priced at $500, this processor is very strong competition for Intel's Core i9-9900, which only has eight cores.

*Show full review*


----------



## gmn 17 (Jul 7, 2019)

Amd rules


----------



## Wavetrex (Jul 7, 2019)

Here we goooo....
Start your reading engines and defog those glasses !

---
Edit: After reading the parts which interest me, one thing is clear:
This is my next CPU (will skip the 16-core, it's too much and from the cost difference I can get a nice 1TB PCIe 4.0 SSD)

Video encoding results are astonishing for the price !


----------



## Steevo (Jul 7, 2019)

The most energy efficient per workload, and manages to kick Intel in Dez Nuts at essentially everything within a few percent. 

Good work AMD.


----------



## r9 (Jul 7, 2019)

It's definitely and improvement but I was expecting more to be honest.


----------



## Hockster (Jul 7, 2019)

Hopefully this isn't typical for overclocking levels. Was hoping for better results.


----------



## W1zzard (Jul 7, 2019)

Hockster said:


> Hopefully this isn't typical for overclocking levels. Was hoping for better results.


Heat is the problem, I'm sure the CPU can go much higher if you have the cooling for it


----------



## oxidized (Jul 7, 2019)

Nothing incredible to see here, i honestly was hoping for a better overclocking ability, and power consumption wasn't supposed to be far lower than intel and temps too?


----------



## Eskimonster (Jul 7, 2019)

And the king is still 9700k/9900k, you can pick the one you prefer even.


----------



## Shatun_Bear (Jul 7, 2019)

The 9900K is now obsolete unless it gets a heavy price cut.

This offers basically the same gaming performance as the 9900K in 1440p and up, consumes less power despite 4 extra cores, and demolishes it in productivity


----------



## Eskimonster (Jul 7, 2019)

Shatun_Bear said:


> The 9900K is now obsolete unless it gets a heavy price cut.
> 
> This offers basically the same gaming performance as the 9900K in 1440p and up, consumes less power despite two extra cores, and demolishes it in productivity


No matter your reasons for buying amd or intel, you cant say the new AMD beats intels in gaming.
only reason to go AMD is if you want pcie4.


----------



## oxidized (Jul 7, 2019)

Shatun_Bear said:


> The 9900K is now obsolete unless it gets a heavy price cut.
> 
> This offers basically the same gaming performance as the 9900K in 1440p and up, consumes less power despite two extra cores, and demolishes it in productivity



9900K was already obsolete, but still up there in charts, most of the times it's ahead in gaming, other times it's on par, and it's 4 extra cores, and no it doesn't consume less power https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-9-3900x/18.html

Hell even the 3700X consumes more (most of the times), and it's got the same amount of cores/threads.


----------



## Mephis (Jul 7, 2019)

Shatun_Bear said:


> The 9900K is now obsolete unless it gets a heavy price cut.
> 
> This offers basically the same gaming performance as the 9900K in 1440p and up, consumes less power despite two extra cores, and demolishes it in productivity



Maybe I'm an idiot, but the power graphs seemed to show the exact opposite. It uses more power than any other chip tested.


----------



## Deleted member 157276 (Jul 7, 2019)

Don't worry, AMD won't allow themselves to be beaten by 8700K and even 9700K in gaming. They'll have a 5 GHz part coming out to prove that, as we know they have one according to the reputable TheLostSwede. He has evidence (I know, the evidence has zero relation whatsoever to anything about Zen 5 GHz parts, but who cares? It'S eVidENcE!!).


----------



## B-Real (Jul 7, 2019)

Eskimonster said:


> And the king is still 9700k/9900k, you can pick the one you prefer even.


Hahahaha, poor guy. Since Zen+, AMD has been outselling Intel 2 to 1. It will outsell it at least by 3 to 1 with Zen2.


Eskimonster said:


> No matter your reasons for buying amd or intel, you cant say the new AMD beats intels in gaming.
> only reason to go AMD is if you want pcie4.


Who said AMD would bet Intel in gaming? Even graphs in the AMD event showed that it's near to the best Intels (in some games it was faster, in some it was a bit slower). And it's really near them: with the strongest GPU on the market, Intel has 5% lead on FHD. With a $1200 GPU. 



Shatun_Bear said:


> The 9900K is now obsolete unless it gets a heavy price cut.
> 
> This offers basically the same gaming performance as the 9900K in 1440p and up, consumes less power despite two extra cores, and demolishes it in productivity


It offers the same performance in FHD too. Just realize that the difference is 5% with a 2080Ti on FHD. That's absolutely marginal in terms of high fps. Plus if you "only" use a 1080Ti or 2080, this difference lowers to 0.


----------



## Shatun_Bear (Jul 7, 2019)

Eskimonster said:


> No matter your reasons for buying amd or intel, you cant say the new AMD beats intels in gaming.
> only reason to go AMD is if you want pcie4.



You AMD haters are trying so hard and getting very anxious 

The difference in real-world 'gaming' res of 1440p is *2 PERCENT*. Margin of error. So much for king of gaming!


----------



## Mephis (Jul 7, 2019)

B-Real said:


> Hahahaha, poor guy. Since Zen+, AMD has been outselling Intel 2 to 1. It will outsell it at least by 3 to 1 with Zen2.



Are we really going to continue to use the sales from a single web shop in Germany as a representation of the entire CPU market? I know it may be hard to believe, but the majority of CPU sales are not made to enthusiasts. 

Yes, AMD has made great improvements and I personally would buy Zen 2 over any Intel right now, but please just stop with the nonsense.


----------



## EatingDirt (Jul 7, 2019)

Eskimonster said:


> And the king is still 9700k/9900k, you can pick the one you prefer even.



Alternatively, you could say the king is 3700x/3900x. 10% & 12% faster in CPU tests, only 9% & 7% slower in 720p gaming tests. Both while being better value.  For the 3700x a *massive *27% better value than the 9700k, and the 3900x being a respectable 8% better value than the 9900k.


----------



## Vario (Jul 7, 2019)

Anandtech shows the Ryzen 3000 under full load using less power than the Intel parts, Techpowerup shows it using more.  Maybe Anandtech isn't loading it hard enough.


----------



## W1zzard (Jul 7, 2019)

Vario said:


> Anandtech shows the Ryzen 3000 under full load using less power than the Intel parts, Techpowerup shows it using more.  Maybe Anandtech isn't loading it hard enough.


Probably depends on the software used. I saw huge differences between Prime95's various stress test types


----------



## Eskimonster (Jul 7, 2019)

EatingDirt said:


> Alternatively, you could say the king is 3700x/3900x. 10% & 12% faster in CPU tests, only 9% & 7% in 720p gaming tests. Both while being better value.  For the 3700x a *massive *27% better value than the 9700k, and the 3900x being a respectable 8% better value than the 9900k.


That value goes into nothing if you buy a expensive 570x


----------



## Shatun_Bear (Jul 7, 2019)

Mephis said:


> Are we really going to continue to use the sales from a single web shop in Germany as a representation of the entire CPU market? I know it may be hard to believe, but the majority of CPU sales are not made to enthusiasts.
> 
> Yes, AMD has made great improvements and I personally would buy Zen 2 over any Intel right now, but please just stop with the nonsense.



It's not just from Mindfactory, it's everywhere you look. I just captured this from Amazon.com CPU best sellers. This list is absolutely representative of sales ratios because of the amount of PC hardware Amazon sells. If Ryzen 2000 looks better than 50/50 share, it's only going to get much worse. To be clear I'm talking about the DIY desktop marketshare only, but the same fate will befall other market segments eventually as there is no answer to these CPUs from Intel, only another 14nm refresh of a refresh of a refresh coming 2020.


----------



## Deleted member 157276 (Jul 7, 2019)

Shatun_Bear said:


> You AMD haters are trying so hard and getting very anxious
> 
> Lol I knew this guy was lying from the start, comes across more like an Intel employee, trying to create unrealistic expectations.



The most hilarious part of that is that by noting this very fact, and how people like him fabricate a situation of false hype, and therefore create a sense of disappointment for a fantastic product (because Zen 2 is great; I'm looking forward to finally put a high-end 8 core CPU in my ITX build, without having a jet engine-sounding fan, like Intel's offerings did), you become branded as an Intel fanboy.


----------



## LocutusH (Jul 7, 2019)

Just a question.

Do you always retest every number, in the latest win10 update, and driver enviroment, or are the other processor and vga results just taken over from older reviews?


----------



## W1zzard (Jul 7, 2019)

LocutusH said:


> Do you always retest every number, in the latest win10 update, and driver enviroment


yes, I retested everything, took me two weeks


----------



## Eskimonster (Jul 7, 2019)

But i want to add as a intel gamer , i was hoping a bit more out of amd 3900x.
I am tho very happy for the competition and i cant wait to see what they bring up next.


----------



## IanHagen (Jul 7, 2019)

What a beast! I guess it's finally time for my 4690K to go.

I mean, for gaming, something I do now and then, I'll miss a 2% performance improvement compared to the 9900K, but for things that matter the most to me like compile times and so on it'll run up to 45% faster for less money in some scenarios (LLVM compile benchmark on Phoronix).

On top of that, upgrading to the 3900X will cost me less. A value-conscious motherboard whose VRM performance matches that of some nice B450/X470 options for Z370/Z390 is considerably more expensive and I'd have to get a cooler for the i9 9900K. Considering prices in my country, the Z3*0 build would cost 36% more than the AM4 -- For much less productivity performance!

I understand some people are entirely gaming-minded and might want to stick to Z390, but boy did AMD made me happy with this release.


----------



## LocutusH (Jul 7, 2019)

W1zzard said:


> yes, I retested everything, took me two weeks



Thank you. I was just asking, because some other site suggested, that the reason TPU dont get the Ryzen so much better than Intel, is because Intels recent performance drops by windows updates are not seen in this testing. But they are wrong then, i suppose.
On a side note, the same site accusing you this, is using a clearly AMD propagated testing package, instead of realistic number of games, and benchmarks like you.


----------



## Deleted member 157276 (Jul 7, 2019)

Some really funny tidbits to look back on:



Captain_Tom said:


> If 7nm Ryzen comes out before Intel gets (real) 10nm/8-core products out... They will curbstomp Intel harder than possibly even SandyBridge crushed AMD.





CyborgChimp said:


> Had to make an account just to stop you incorrectly bashing others, please learn more about the silicon before you lose yourself in your own arrogance. Zen was built on a 14nm architecture designed for 3ghz mobile, this is why it hits a voltage and clock ceiling at 4.0-4.1ghz. Zen+ was built on '12nm' which is largely marketing for an optimised 14nm process but has allowed that ceiling to lift to approximately 4.3-4.4ghz. *7nm from both GloFo and TSMC has been designed for 5ghz, not 3, not 4, just to make sure you get your maths right, 5*. Now if AMD were able to get 25% out of a 3ghz optimised process then it* wouldn't be all that difficult for them to get 5ghz*, what the process is intended for, out of 7nm.
> 
> Now you've got two options, *stop hating on other users when actually they are more on the money than you with their predictions or actually look up the facts before presenting your argument because at the moment you just sound uninformed and it is making you look bad.*
> 
> Good day





Captain_Tom said:


> The current estimate is that 7nm products can use 60% less power than 14nm for the same performance, or it can also offer a 40% boost at the same power consumption. There is also up to a massive 45% reduction in die size (almost half the size!).
> So *even if we were to be insanely conservative* and assume the end result is half as good as expected, *we would get enough room to add 2-6 more cores and increase single-threaded performance by 40*%.



My hope is (or at least was) an understanding from above mentioned people to not write/talk/speculate on topics for which they have no understanding of. The last person refuses to as he stands by his word: "I change none of those predictions".

He is already going off making predictions about Zen 3 "bring[ing] another 10-15% performance increase while cutting energy usage in half AGAIN". An astonishing feet, considering  the upcoming 7nm EUV only provides around ~8% better efficiency over current 7nm process. Hopefully, people have learned a lesson from these charlatans and their misinformation, and will give their comments no serious considerations in the future.


----------



## EatingDirt (Jul 7, 2019)

Eskimonster said:


> That value goes into nothing if you buy a expensive 570x



Luckily no one needs to buy an x570 to run either, and can buy an x470 or b350 instead. Your point about x570 price is irrelevant anyway, you can grab one for $160, which isn't far above a z390, with the bonus of having NVME PCIe 4.0 slots(and 3 of them, even), a value add that z390 will never have.

So again, you could say the king is 3700x/3900x. 10% & 12% faster in CPU tests, only 9% & 7% slower in 720p gaming tests. Both while being better value.  For the 3700x a *massive *27% better value than the 9700k, and the 3900x being a respectable 8% better value than the 9900k.


----------



## Deleted member 158293 (Jul 7, 2019)

Haven't seen a CPU release bloodbath like this in along time...

Good job AMD!


----------



## Shatun_Bear (Jul 7, 2019)

Eskimonster said:


> That value goes into nothing if you buy a expensive 570x



This is not Intel, you can buy a cheap X470 board you don't need a X570. Better yet, just drop this in your X370 if it's high-end enough. You're trying too hard. 



Eskimonster said:


> But i want to add as a intel gamer , i was hoping a bit more out of amd 3900x.
> *I am tho very happy for the competition* and i cant wait to see what they bring up next.



You sure about that?


----------



## SIGSEGV (Jul 7, 2019)

I am ready for their 16 cores cpu . bring it on!


----------



## Eskimonster (Jul 7, 2019)

EatingDirt said:


> Luckily no one needs to buy an x570 to run either, and can buy an x470 or b350 instead. Your point about x570 price is irrelevant anyway, you can grab one for $160, which isn't far above a z390, with the bonus of having NVME PCIe 4.0 slots(and 3 of them, even), a value add that z390 will never have.
> 
> So again, you could say the king is 3700x/3900x. 10% & 12% faster in CPU tests, only 9% & 7% slower in 720p gaming tests. Both while being better value.  For the 3700x a *massive *27% better value than the 9700k, and the 3900x being a respectable 8% better value than the 9900k.


Im just not impressed with it, I guess the xtra cores dont matter if you play only.


----------



## dicktracy (Jul 7, 2019)

Yep AMD lied with their BS marketing gaming slides LMAO


----------



## Endeavour (Jul 7, 2019)

Apparently the power consumption is much higher on the asrock x570 board, and that's probably why TPU has those high power consumption figures for the whole system.


----------



## z1n0x (Jul 7, 2019)

dicktracy said:


> Yep AMD lied with their BS marketing gaming slides LMAO


AMD showed and said comparable gaming performance at 1080p.
So how did they lied?
You seem triggered. Are you triggered?


----------



## 15th Warlock (Jul 7, 2019)

What a day for AMD, thanks for making the CPU segment exciting again!

Like said in the review, Intel would still be milking us with quad core processors at high prices, AMD sure has pulled the rug from underneath Intel.


----------



## HD64G (Jul 7, 2019)

W1zzard said:


> yes, I retested everything, took me two weeks


I think this new chipset driver got out today and affects ryzen cpu's topology and thus gaming performace: https://www.amd.com/en/support/chipsets/amd-socket-am4/x470

Maybe a small sample testing could be done to make sure if that's that?


----------



## theonek (Jul 7, 2019)

well, to be honest, expected better gaming performance according to older gen Ryzens, so it won't differ at all, only money for a nonsense upgrade....


----------



## skline00 (Jul 7, 2019)

Very solid release.


----------



## quadibloc (Jul 7, 2019)

I am a little disappointed to find out that when Intel muttered about "real-world" gaming, they were right on the money. But that certainly isn't enough disappointment to affect my purchasing decision; AMD is still clearly the best choice. Actually, though, a 5% lag in gaming performance (another site's reviews I saw earlier put the figure at 8%) isn't the most serious setback with AMD; the power consumption and temperature figures are a bit more dismaying, as a higher temperature may affect reliability.


----------



## efikkan (Jul 7, 2019)

Welcome back AMD!

As expected, it's close to Intel in core performance, good energy efficiency, pushing down cost per core, and practically good enough in gaming(1440p) to be a serious contender. It is nowhere close some of the optimistic "leaks", but many of us knew those were BS anyway.

This marks only the beginning of some good competition and great times for PC builders out there.


----------



## Eskimonster (Jul 7, 2019)

efikkan said:


> Welcome back AMD!
> 
> As expected, it's close to Intel in core performance, good energy efficiency, pushing down cost per core, and practically good enough in gaming(1440p) to be a serious contender. It is nowhere close some of the optimistic "leaks", but many of us knew those were BS anyway.
> 
> This marks only the beginning of some good competition and great times for PC builders out there.


My thoughts ezzacly


----------



## Athlonite (Jul 7, 2019)

The AMD Ryzen 9 3900X retails for $500.
HAHAHAHAHAHA ROFL not here in Gougeland (New Zealand) the price here is $999.00NZD thats way more than the U.S is paying even after the exchange rate conversion $500US = $750NZ so doesn't look like I'll be upgrading the 2700 anytime soon


----------



## Divide Overflow (Jul 7, 2019)

Outstanding performance from AMD!   It's great to see them providing such competition to Intel.  I look forward to using an 3900x in my next system build.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jul 7, 2019)

Endeavour said:


> Apparently the power consumption is much higher on the x570 boards, and that's probably why TPU has those high power consumption figures for the whole system.


Eh? The Gigabyte board has a 5W increase in power draw between X470 and X570 in that graph... The fact that ASRock designed a bad power delivery solution is not AMD's fault.



HD64G said:


> I think this new chipset driver got out today and affects ryzen cpu's topology and thus gaming performace: https://www.amd.com/en/support/chipsets/amd-socket-am4/x470
> 
> Maybe a small sample testing could be done to make sure if that's that?



There's also an updated UEFI for the board used by TPU, which apparently improves the performance of the 3900X - https://www.asrock.com/mb/AMD/X570 Taichi/index.asp#BIOS
Ha, there's also a beta BIOS that improves memory support.


----------



## hardcore_gamer (Jul 7, 2019)

Eskimonster said:


> only reason to go AMD is if you want pcie4



If that's the only reason you've found, you might wanna read the review once again.


----------



## Bwaze (Jul 7, 2019)

I have a question regarding Precision Boost Overdrive.

In Computex and E3 Amd showed these slides:











And couple of days ago AMD showed this video on Precision Boost Overdrive:

Updates to Precision Boost Overdrive for the AMD Ryzen 3000 Series

In video AMD representative clearly gives example of single processor that boosts to 4.55 GHz, and after PBO it can reach 4.75 GHz.

In all those cases AMD shows PBO lifting single core performance and frequency (+200 MHz Auto Overclock for Cinebench R20 single thread on first slide).

I haven't really seen any Ryzen 3000 on any review that boosts past their stated single core boost clock, except when using liquid nitrogen. Why is that?


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 7, 2019)

La Menthe said:


> The most hilarious part of that is that noting this very fact, and how people like him fabricate a situation of false hype, and therefore create a sense of disappointment for a fantastic product (because Zen 2 is great), you are the one being lambasted for being an Intel fanboy.



Say anything in these forums and you'll eventually get called a fanboy I find.

Still, I can confirm what you say.  I wrote the infamous hypetrain article a while back saying exactly that... and next to the cries of "no politics" (because I used a political analogy to...  Mugabe of all people) there were the cries of "Intel fanboy!"

I am neither an AMD supporter nor an Intel one.  I just like actually reviewing with realistic expectations.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jul 7, 2019)

Bwaze said:


> I have a question regarding Precision Boost Overdrive.
> 
> In Computex and E3 Amd showed these slides:
> 
> ...



Maybe the reviewers weren't testing PBO properly? Early UEFI? Wrong drivers?
AMD just launched new drivers today, there are new UEFIs out in the past day or two, so it might be worth taking these first tests as just that.
Unlike Intel, AMD seems to be a bit sloppy with coordinating launches and the boards makers have to do a lot of the heavy lifting.

Note that this is apparently tied to the power budget allocated to the chip, in addition to having sufficiently good cooling.
The power budget (as I pointed out in a different thread) is 87W on the 65W TDP parts and 143W on the 105W TDP parts.
It's clearly working, although unfortunately, these guys don't mention the exact frequency their CPUs hit. It's seemingly working best in productivity related software, as it doesn't seem to have a huge impact in games. Also, you might need Google translate to read that properly.








						AMD Ryzen 9 3900X och 7 3700X "Matisse" - Test - Test: Prestanda med upplåst strömbudget
					

Med Zen 2 och 7 nanometer lovar AMD en produkt som kan slå Intel. Ryzen 3000-serien är här och efter över ett decenniums frånvaro hälsar vi AMD välkommen til...




					www.sweclockers.com
				






R-T-B said:


> Say anything in these forums and you'll eventually get called a fanboy I find.
> 
> Still, I can confirm what you say.  I wrote the infamous hypetrain article a while back saying exactly that... and next to the cries of "no politics" (because I used a political analogy to...  Mugabe of all people) there were the cries of "Intel fanboy!"
> 
> I am neither an AMD supporter nor an AMD one.  I just like actually reviewing with realistic expectations.



So you're neither/nor a supporter of AMD?


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 7, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> So you're neither/nor a supporter of AMD?



Or intel...  but yeah.  Fixed.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jul 7, 2019)

R-T-B said:


> Or intel...  but yeah.  Fixed.


Sorry, it was too funny a slip up not to take advantage of...



Eskimonster said:


> oh my goat, the fanless 570x cost 1100 $ in denmark


Maybe you should sell the goat, it might fetch you enough for a motherboard?

Also, can you please change your profile picture, seeing you with your hand down your speedos is disconcerting...


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 7, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> Sorry, it was too funny a slip up not to take advantage of...



I was editing it seconds ago thinking "lol there is no way everyone missed that, even if it was only up for a minute"

Thanks for not disappointing.


----------



## Eskimonster (Jul 7, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> Sorry, it was too funny a slip up not to take advantage of...
> 
> 
> Maybe you should sell the goat, it might fetch you enough for a motherboard?
> ...


It aint speedoes, i just pulled up the shorts to get sun, and my hand is tucking them. I did not even know i was beeing pictured b4 it was to late


----------



## W1zzard (Jul 7, 2019)

Bwaze said:


> I have a question regarding Precision Boost Overdrive.
> 
> In Computex and E3 Amd showed these slides:
> 
> ...


Non-x cpu


----------



## 95Viper (Jul 7, 2019)

Keep on topic.
Take Avatar/Pic talk to PMs or report what offends you.

Thank You.


----------



## Bwaze (Jul 7, 2019)

W1zzard said:


> Non-x cpu



The second slide shows PBO increases across most of the product range, and in AMD Youtube PBO explanation an example of CPU that boosts from 4.55 GHz to 4.75 GHz is clearly not 3600 non X (since it's boost is much lower).

I think it's fair to assume that AMD showed PBO overclock of single core boost above stock maximum boost for all new Ryzen 3000 CPUs. And reviews simply don't show that.


----------



## Deleted member 157276 (Jul 7, 2019)

Bwaze said:


> I think it's fair to assume that AMD showed PBO overclock of single core boost above stock maximum boost for all new Ryzen 3000 CPUs. And reviews simply don't show that.



I think It's fair to say that this is textbook illustration of misleading marketing. Advertising at its core.


----------



## Bwaze (Jul 7, 2019)

But why didn't a single reviewer point that out? The only one pointing that out was Der8auer in his short pre-NDA comment on overclocking, who also told that all of his processors don't even achieve advertised boost in single core loads.


----------



## EatingDirt (Jul 7, 2019)

Eskimonster said:


> oh my goat, the fanless 570x cost 1100 $ in denmark


Look, we get it, you love intel stuff, but you're just constantly pointing out irrelevant talking points in some sort of attempt to try and make these Zen 2 CPU's look bad(which they quite obviously are not). 

First it was 'you need an expensive x570 board' and which removes the better value they have over their intel counterparts. We've all pointed out is not the case, so now, completely off topic without any outside influence, you mention what I assume can only be the Asrock x570 Aqua, a 100% waterblock motherboard is $1100(which doesn't even seem to be in stores yet?). We can do that same game with the z390 motherboards: Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Waterforce. 

These Zen 2 CPU's are good. They're good value(especially the 3700x/3600x), and _even_ if you're playing at 1080p with a $1,300 2080 Ti, which is highly unlikely, there is roughly a 5-8% difference, which is to say, a completely unnoticeable difference.


----------



## kithylin (Jul 7, 2019)

So much is missing from your review... your graphics test for 1080p, you don't say at all what graphics settings you're using. Ultra? medium? low? AA on? AA off? You don't tell us at all. You stick to only 3200 mhz memory as well. The 2000 series were certified up to 3600 Mhz memory for most motherboards for X470 but you don't even try 4000 or higher? Why not? Do you people not even have access to ram at 4000 mhz or faster? You're also only testing an AIO.. So you claim the chips run hot and that limits the OC. Okay, so try a custom water loop instead? Do you not know how to set up a custom water loop? *Sigh* This is the major problem with tech review sites. Most of them don't even try to actually push the chips properly to a normal usage situation, custom water, fast ram, etc. Most people have a decent custom water loop these days. Back to the reddit list to find a proper review site.


----------



## Deleted member 157276 (Jul 7, 2019)

Bwaze said:


> But why didn't a single reviewer point that out? The only one pointing that out was Der8auer in his short pre-NDA comment on overclocking, who also told that all of his processors don't even achieve advertised boost in single core loads.



1. Reviewers are biased. Not necessarily biased to a particular brand (although that certainly exist), but biased to private power in general. In this case, the vendors that ship them products beforehand for review, and that they are dependent upon for their livelihood. This is simple political economic understanding that is well-understood. That is what the whole PR industry is for, after all; to manufacture consent. And reviewing products is a part of that; it's a form of indirect advertising.

2. To avoid backlash from a hostile AMD fanbase (which is very real). Just look at all the criticism various sites, like Techspot and Gamersnexus, recieved when Zen and Zen+ launched. These sites would prefer to stay away from unnecessary drama, if possible.



kithylin said:


> *Sigh* This is the major problem with tech review sites. Most of them don't even try to actually push the chips properly to a normal usage situation, custom water, fast ram, etc.



Custom water loop is not a "normal usage situation", it's a niche. AIO and air coolers are what define as a "normal usage situation". Same is true in terms of RAM speeds; tinkering with RAM timings is something only a small minority do, whereas the majority of users either leave it at stock or just choose a simple XMP profile and leave it at that.

Maybe there's an argument to be had that they should test in the instances you talked about. But don't call it normal when it isn't.

Honestly, the biggest criticism of this review is the lack of minimal FPS metrics, as well as lack of more games tested. I would have liked a greater pool of titles, including the most popular titles out there: PUBG, Overwatch, Dota 2, CS: Go, Apex Legends.


----------



## Durvelle27 (Jul 7, 2019)

This is going to be an amazing upgrade from my 1700X


----------



## kithylin (Jul 7, 2019)

La Menthe said:


> Same is true in terms of RAM speeds; tinkering with RAM timings is something only a small minority do, whereas the majority of users either leave it at stock or just choose a simple XMP profile and leave it at that.


All X470 motherboards have certified ram kits to certified up to 3600 mhz ram for all Ryzen 2000 series chips. And that is not "tweaking with settings". That is "Buy the listed memory kit, stick it in and it's guranteed to work out of the box at the specified speeds". They didn't even try anything above 3200. Ryzen is supposed to scale with ram speed and they're just sticking to stock ram speed.

EDIT: I'm even learning from seeing other websites that AMD provides ram kits with the reviewer kit for the new chips, Trident-Z Royal DDR4-3600. So it's actually provided with the new chips and guranteed to work with the new chips and Techpowerup here isn't even using the provided ram. Instead they used their own 3200 mhz kit. What the heck?


----------



## Ravenas (Jul 7, 2019)

3900x is a beast, but for a gaming CPU seems like they better choice is the 3700x due to price and performance comparison.

Intel has been cornered into a single thread, gaming performance category at this point.


----------



## bogmali (Jul 7, 2019)

95Viper said:


> Keep on topic.
> 
> Thank You.




Thread cleaned of troll posts and thread bans issued


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 7, 2019)

Durvelle27 said:


> This is going to be an amazing upgrade from my 1700X


If you can use all the cores and threads, no doubt!


----------



## Durvelle27 (Jul 7, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> If you can use all the cores and threads, no doubt!


I already manage to max both my CPU and RAM out

So the 3900X and 64GB of RAM is a great upgrade


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jul 7, 2019)

kithylin said:


> So much is missing from your review... your graphics test for 1080p, you don't say at all what graphics settings you're using. Ultra? medium? low? AA on? AA off? You don't tell us at all. You stick to only 3200 mhz memory as well. The 2000 series were certified up to 3600 Mhz memory for most motherboards for X470 but you don't even try 4000 or higher? Why not? Do you people not even have access to ram at 4000 mhz or faster? You're also only testing an AIO.. So you claim the chips run hot and that limits the OC. Okay, so try a custom water loop instead? Do you not know how to set up a custom water loop? *Sigh* This is the major problem with tech review sites. Most of them don't even try to actually push the chips properly to a normal usage situation, custom water, fast ram, etc. Most people have a decent custom water loop these days. Back to the reddit list to find a proper review site.



Did you not see how much content just went up? Again, as I suggested to someone else, please contact @W1zzard and ask for an internship, I'm sure he'd love to have your expertise and opinion at hand to help him test things. How much hardware can you test in 24h? I presume you don't need to eat, sleep or use the little boys/girls room, right?
It's easy to criticise from the outside, but once you've done some serious last minute testing, you know what goes into something like this and you appreciate the hard work that has gone into it.

What you might also not know, is that AMD has seeded different hardware to different sites. They've seeded at least three different motherboards and not all sites were given boards by AMD, some were seeded directly from the board makers. So if not everyone got boards, do you think everyone got RAM? AMD has a list of priority media that gets the full kit and some don't even get a CPU to test. But hey, you know best, right?


----------



## Dyatlov A (Jul 7, 2019)

When a Core i5 is faster than this Core monster, I do not see why is this AMD hype? Make fewer fast Cores, rather than many slow ones!


----------



## Zubasa (Jul 7, 2019)

Ravenas said:


> 3900x is a beast, but for a gaming CPU seems like they better choice is the 3700x due to price and performance comparison.
> 
> Intel has been cornered into a single thread, gaming performance category at this point.


Even for gaming, it only makes a marginal difference if you are using a 2080ti.



BluesFanUK said:


> The 3900x is an absolute monster, not quite sure I can justify upgrading from my 5820K though. Retail price on Amazon is £480, as usual we overpay, though for 12 cores that's still astonishingly low.
> 
> If this were Intel that 3900x would cost upwards of £1k, easy.


The i9-9920X 12-core does indeed costs $1200.
And it is Skylake-X, which doesn't game as well as CoffeeLake  either.


----------



## BluesFanUK (Jul 7, 2019)

The 3900x is an absolute monster, not quite sure I can justify upgrading from my 5820K though. Retail price on Amazon is £480, as usual we overpay, though for 12 cores that's still astonishingly low.

If this were Intel that 3900x would cost upwards of £1k, easy.


----------



## biffzinker (Jul 7, 2019)

@W1zzard, the TDP in the table doesn't match up with AMD's.










			https://www.amd.com/en/product/8436


----------



## kithylin (Jul 7, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> Did you not see how much content just went up? Again, as I suggested to someone else, please contact @W1zzard and ask for an internship, I'm sure he'd love to have your expertise and opinion at hand to help him test things. How much hardware can you test in 24h? I presume you don't need to eat, sleep or use the little boys/girls room, right?
> It's easy to criticise from the outside, but once you've done some serious last minute testing, you know what goes into something like this and you appreciate the hard work that has gone into it.


Most (almost all) review sites have had their review samples for weeks and they've been testing and reviewing the chips for a while now, but just under NDA and not allowed to publish the results until this morning, today. They definitely do not have "just 24 hours to do all testing". Where did you ever get that?

I don't know everything but I'm just looking for an in-depth review that lists everything and really tries to push these chips as fast as they're capable of going. It's not hard to at the very least write into the review "Ultra" for the 1080p tests.. to let us know what graphics settings they used. They didn't even do that much here at techpowerup. It's well known by now that All ryzen chips scale with ram speed, yet despite this, the reviewers here stick to 3200 Mhz. Why? That's so confusing. I've so far seen 10 reviews from the reddit thread and only one site used ram above 3200 mhz when testing these chips and it was the 3600 mhz kit provided with their review kit. Out of 10 so far.. only one even tried a custom water loop to see what the chips can really do.
It's just frustrating to try and find information on these chips. I'm considering buying one but if I can't see how it performs maxed out on a CWC loop with fast ram then I'll have to wait a while. I'm still hunting to find a review that even remotely tries to max out the new chips. Almost everyone is testing either stock speed with stock ram or just an AIO.

Maybe one of my friends will actually buy one and I can talk to them 1:1 to give me the information about the chips that reviewers won't tell us.

EDIT: So at least one motherboard, the X570 Godlike has QVL-Certified ram kits listed up to 4800 Mhz DDR4 for the ryzen 3000 series. Yet still no one is trying above 3600 that I can find. Sad.. depressing even. These chips may have untapped potential but no one is even trying.





						MSI USA
					

Welcome to the MSI USA website. MSI designs and creates Mainboard,  AIO, Graphics card, Notebook, Netbook, Tablet PC, Consumer electronics, Communication, Barebone, Server, industrial computing, Multimedia, Clean Machine and Car Infotainment.




					us.msi.com


----------



## W1zzard (Jul 7, 2019)

biffzinker said:


> the TDP in the table doesn't match up with AMD's.


Fixed



kithylin said:


> you don't say at all what graphics settings you're using. Ultra? medium? low? AA on? AA off?


ah right, added to the test system page. thanks for pointing this out.



kithylin said:


> I'm even learning from seeing other websites that AMD provides ram kits with the reviewer kit for the new chips, Trident-Z Royal DDR4-3600. So it's actually provided with the new chips and guranteed to work with the new chips and Techpowerup here isn't even using the provided ram. Instead they used their own 3200 mhz kit. What the heck?


If you tested all competing CPUs on 3200 CL14, and AMD sent you a 3600 MHz kit. Would you use it? What if Intel sends me a 4800 MHz kit for their CPUs for the next Ryzen review?

They did send me the full reviewer kit of course, including that memory.



kithylin said:


> All ryzen chips scale with ram speed


You are aware that latency matters too? Check out our memory scaling article


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 7, 2019)

kithylin said:


> Most (almost all) review sites have had their review samples for weeks and they've been testing and reviewing the chips for a while now, but just under NDA and not allowed to publish the results until this morning, today. They definitely do not have "just 24 hours to do all testing". Where did you ever get that?


Maybe someone got it a day before. 4  I know of, 2 HUGE sites and two small, that didnt have these for over 1.5 weeks. They also got the 5700 and 5700xt too. The reviewer here is the cpu and GPU guy. Double whammy.


----------



## Hotobu (Jul 7, 2019)

The power draw and temperatures for the 9900K vs the 3900 X in this review are pretty much the inverse of what I've been seeing from other sources. (Paul's Hardware, Hardware Unboxed)


----------



## Space Lynx (Jul 7, 2019)

Shatun_Bear said:


> The 9900K is now obsolete unless it gets a heavy price cut.
> 
> This offers basically the same gaming performance as the 9900K in 1440p and up, consumes less power despite 4 extra cores, and demolishes it in productivity



10-20 fps less in several games, few shown here like that, but more if you read guru3d and techspot reviews.  if FPS is all you care about on a high refresh 1080p or 1440p monitor, then intel is still your king, even a 9600k at $250 will OC to 5.1ghz no downlocking all 6 cores, 99% guaranteed and still decent temps, and you are prob look at 30 fps over ryzen 3900x in several games, but  benches never show overclock scores. hate to say it but I am bit disappointed. I only game, so just going to sit this round out and hope Ryzen 4700x, x670 boards and 10nm or 7nm intel next year's battle. 

actually I hope RDNA matures next year, it's honestly looking promising I will do an all AMD build (mainly for security reasons, I no longer trust intel's hardware faults and nvidia's telemetry) around this time next year with the next launches, I think AMD just needs one more year to flex it's muscles.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jul 7, 2019)

kithylin said:


> Yay censorship. My posts get deleted because I criticize the reviewers here. Lovely. I'm sure this will get deleted too.



A constructive critique is always welcomed by @W1zzard but if you're just here to sling shit, you can do that in your own house. If a mod deletes a post on TPU, it's because it adds nothing or is ignorant. If you can improve the review process by adding valuable feedback, please do. Trolling doesn't work so well.


----------



## Thefumigator (Jul 7, 2019)

Not sure about you guys, but I just fell in love with the 3900X 
This is my next CPU, unless something strange happens.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 7, 2019)

Its a great cpu if you can utilize the cores and threads, otherwise, look a bit down the product stack for something cheaper (and also great).


----------



## Easo (Jul 7, 2019)

Yeah, if I really will upgrade my 4790K next year, it is going to be Ryzen without a doubt. 
I do wonder if Intel will make another "glued together" PP presenation? xD They have no true response until next year...


----------



## Thefumigator (Jul 7, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> Its a great cpu if you can utilize the cores and threads, otherwise, look a bit down the product stack for something cheaper (and also great).


In my case is all about productivity , and virtual machines, software development and networking


----------



## bogmali (Jul 7, 2019)

kithylin said:


> Yay censorship. My posts get deleted because I criticize the reviewers here. Lovely. I'm sure this will get deleted too.



Went through all the posts and I didn't see any of yours getting deleted


----------



## kanecvr (Jul 7, 2019)

Wait - I'm confused - how the **** did you manage to get 57C under load on a 9900k when my sample can't keep itself under 78? And that's cooled by a Thermalright Le grande Macho with two 140mm fans in push-pull configuration... Testing with a Nocua NH-14D temps go up another 2 degrees.... did you disable boost? Did you impose a thermal limit?


----------



## Ravenas (Jul 7, 2019)

W1zz I may have missed it, but there should be somewhere in the review explicitly stating that if all you care about is gaming, then the 3700x offers the same gaming performance for ~$329.99.

Why would any gamer oriented buyer purchase the 3900x over the 3700x?


----------



## Space Lynx (Jul 7, 2019)

kanecvr said:


> Wait - I'm confused - how the **** did you manage to get 57C under load on a 9900k when my sample can't keep itself under 78? And that's cooled by a Thermalright Le grande Macho with two 140mm fans in push-pull configuration... Testing with a Nocua NH-14D temps go up another 2 degrees.... did you disable boost? Did you impose a thermal limit?



thought you were talking smack at first so I just checked, confirmed... it is 57 at load for 9900k... something has to be wrong there 

my 9700k would hit 95 celsius on a NH-D14 with a 5ghz even OC... lol



Ravenas said:


> W1zz I may have missed it, but there should be somewhere in the review explicitly stating that if all you care about is gaming, then the 3700x offers the same performance for ~$329.99.
> 
> Why would any gamer oriented buyer purchase the 3900x over the 3700x?


 future games might utilize more cores. and most CPU purchases are long term purchases for people... my 2500k for example lasted me 7 years.


----------



## Ravenas (Jul 7, 2019)

lynx29 said:


> thought you were talking smack at first so I just checked, confirmed... it is 57 at load for 9900k... something has to be wrong there
> 
> my 9700k would hit 95 celsius on a NH-D14 with a 5ghz even OC... lol
> 
> ...



I have been hearing that hypothetical for 15 years.


----------



## phill (Jul 7, 2019)

Firstly @W1zzard, brilliant review as always.  The dedication you have for retesting everything and the amount of hardware and testing you have to do must be crazy but there's a lot of people here that are so grateful, so as I'm one, I wanted to say thank you 

Secondly...  Whilst we might always wish for more performance from AMD, this is one of the biggest upgrades from 2700 to 3700 for example we've seen in such a long time..  We've become used to Intel and their meh give them this much performance and they'll still buy us routine (much like Nvidia now with their "Super" line of cards...  I for one grateful I never bought a RTX 2xxx series card...  but moving on) so it brings me a good smile to my face when seeing something like this being posted.  I mean for the price difference for 8 cores 16 threads and the performance difference in games with what w1zzard has tested, I'd be buying AMD's regardless...  I mean it's already been said, but 2%??  I'm sorry but (my personal opinion here) must be bat crap crazy to not consider AMD for what they have just released.  Even with it being 2% difference there's so many other areas that it just surpasses the Intel equivalents and destroys them in others, I mean why wouldn't you??  Still, I for one are just over the moon of the releases today and I am very much looking forward to seeing whatever new Threadripper CPUs come out and not forgetting the 16 core that's due out in September I've read...  

Bring it home AMD..  I'll be supporting you even with all the Intel kit I have here...  Times are changing and I'm going with that change


----------



## W1zzard (Jul 7, 2019)

kanecvr said:


> Wait - I'm confused - how the **** did you manage to get 57C under load on a 9900k when my sample can't keep itself under 78? And that's cooled by a Thermalright Le grande Macho with two 140mm fans in push-pull configuration... Testing with a Nocua NH-14D temps go up another 2 degrees.... did you disable boost? Did you impose a thermal limit?


Set your cpu to stock


----------



## Eskimonster (Jul 7, 2019)

If i was anything but a gamer , id jump directly into AMD.
this makes totally sence if youre a streamer or creator.


----------



## Aquinus (Jul 8, 2019)

I'm highly amused by how Phoronix's review shows the 3900x keeping up with a i9 7960x, a $1,700 USD part... and AMD still has a 16c/32t part coming. Intel is in trouble if they don't have a counter for this before it hits the server market.




https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-9-3900x/22.html


----------



## Manoa (Jul 8, 2019)

W1zzard said:


> You are aware that latency matters too? Check out our memory scaling article



it's funy: in the past: core 2 vs phenom 2 it was intel using glue and northbridge and now it's the opposite xD
I bet you anything this new Zen has north of 200 clocks to memory, intel will be around 140. that's what the 64 mega L3 is for...im wondering what the L3 latency is


----------



## biffzinker (Jul 8, 2019)

Aquinus said:


> keeping up with a i9 7960x, a $1,700 USD part


It's on sale for $1439.14, but at 165 watt TDP while the Ryzen 9 3900X makes do with 105 watt TDP?


----------



## Hotobu (Jul 8, 2019)

Ravenas said:


> I have been hearing that hypothetical for 15 years.



It seems to me that it's a lot more of a reality now given that the next gen of consoles will be based off of Zen 2. Plus considering how long gaming development cycles are for AAA games, and that >4 cores only became a focal point for AMD and Intel in their mainstream processors only 2 years ago we're probably at an inflection point right now.


----------



## Ravenas (Jul 8, 2019)

Hotobu said:


> It seems to me that it's a lot more of a reality now given that the next gen of consoles will be based off of Zen 2. Plus considering how long gaming development cycles are for AAA games, and that >4 cores only became a focal point for AMD and Intel in their mainstream processors only 2 years ago we're probably at an inflection point right now.



So processor cores only matter to developers when there are more than 4?


----------



## Hotobu (Jul 8, 2019)

What?


----------



## nikoya (Jul 8, 2019)

Thank you W1zzard for the time spent preparing and writing such a deep analysis. 
Thank you for all the other articles as well.

Thanks to you I personally learned really a lot.


----------



## PYRO1125 (Jul 8, 2019)

Great review would it be possible to compare windows 10 1809 vs 1903 if there is any difference in games? I use win 10 LTSC 1809 because I hate win 10 home/pro I hate all that useless crap they add. Being on LTSC I know there is no upgrade to 1903 and want to know the difference between the two.

Thank you


----------



## xkm1948 (Jul 8, 2019)

God damn it give me that sweet sweet Threadripper Gen 3 AMD!!

Amazing IPC for productivity, Amazing core count and Amazing Gaming performance.

Feels it is back to Athlon64 days.




Good.


----------



## Metroid (Jul 8, 2019)

xkm1948 said:


> Feels it is back to Athlon64 days.



Not quite but I get what you are trying to say, Athlon fx were far superior to intel netburst than ryzen 3xxx is to 9900k. Newegg sold them pretty fast. I had some problems so I could not buy it, now i will have to wait be back in stock. After seen many reviews I must admit that the 3700x is the best choice here, before the reviews i thought the 3900x would be but for the price the 3700x is much more efficient and plus with the money $170 or so saved on the 3700x over the 3900x can be used to buy a better cpu in 2 years, maybe intel 10nm, intel 7nm or ryzen 4xxx series.

That wraith prism cooler will be enough for the 3700x, if going 3900x then a better cooler will be needed, watercooling is a must and watercooling is expensive and cost money to be kept and not to mention is kind risk if somehow something is messed up. I had watercooling for years and never had a problem but I used to keep watching it regularly, with air cooling you just leave there and forget.


----------



## xkm1948 (Jul 8, 2019)

I have to this now.


----------



## Xuper (Jul 8, 2019)

__
		https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/cacwf9

any idea?


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jul 8, 2019)

Xuper said:


> __
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/cacwf9
> 
> any idea?


I would expect to see performance improvements, if only small ones, over time.
ASRock already has two new UEFI versions for the boards that @W1zzard tested with and one of them is supposed to improve the performance for the 3900X specifically.


----------



## Xuper (Jul 8, 2019)

Source : https://www.overclock3d.net/reviews...n_7_3700x_ryzen_9_3900x_x470_vs_x570_review/6

CPU-z reports 2 volts on X470.


----------



## W1zzard (Jul 8, 2019)

Xuper said:


> CPU-z reports 2 volts on X470.


Might even be 2 V, I did see some high voltages, too, depending on the board/bios/setting. Always a good idea to actually measure the voltage


----------



## Vayra86 (Jul 8, 2019)

Yo Intel, you remember that gaming dominance you had left?

Its gone.

This is one killer CPU


----------



## kanecvr (Jul 8, 2019)

lynx29 said:


> thought you were talking smack at first so I just checked, confirmed... it is 57 at load for 9900k... something has to be wrong there
> 
> my 9700k would hit 95 celsius on a NH-D14 with a 5ghz even OC... lol
> 
> ...



Yup. I get 81C with the Noctula NH-D14 but I noticed my motherboard applies an all core boost of 4.8 GHz under load. I'm using a borrowed Asus z370 rog strix. The lowest it will go is 78C using my Thermaright "Le Grande Macho", but if I bump it up to 5GHz it breaks 85C even with that monstrosity of a cooler. And these results are obtained using an open air test bench, in an air conditioned room (25-26C ambient).

New ryzens are pretty hot too apparently....


----------



## Space Lynx (Jul 8, 2019)

Ravenas said:


> I have been hearing that hypothetical for 15 years.



plenty of games benefit from 6 core cpu's now.  not sure what ya smokin.  look at benches, 8700k decimates everything when it launched. but yeah we have  awhile to wait before more than 6 cores matters.


----------



## Xuper (Jul 8, 2019)

With 7nm or 5nm , I expect normal temp would be 70 or above.


----------



## RichF (Jul 8, 2019)

Has any review site, even one, tested with all of the Intel-only security flaws mitigated? (Note: This includes turning off hyperthreading.)

Has any review site, even one, done that and showed the data for them on and off?

Anandtech explicitly said it did not use the mitigations. Other reviews I've seen don't even mention that they exist. Contrary to what one poster said in another thread, using 1903 does not mean they flaws are mitigated. Microsoft chose to make at least one optional (I don't recall how many are optional), a matter of users manually finding and installing the mitigations — apparently to sacrifice security for performance on Intel. There is also the matter of disabling hyperthreading.


----------



## laszlo (Jul 8, 2019)

the glue is working for amd; now only the prices should go lower


----------



## Eskimonster (Jul 8, 2019)

Eskimonster said:


> And the king is still 9700k/9900k, you can pick the one you prefer even.


Even Steve says intel is for gaming.


----------



## Aquinus (Jul 8, 2019)

RichF said:


> Has any review site, even one, tested with all of the Intel-only security flaws mitigated? (Note: This includes turning off hyperthreading.)
> 
> Has any review site, even one, done that and showed the data for them on and off?
> 
> Anandtech explicitly said it did not use the mitigations. Other reviews I've seen don't even mention that they exist. Contrary to what one poster said in another thread, using 1903 does not mean they flaws are mitigated. Microsoft chose to make at least one optional (I don't recall how many are optional), a matter of users manually finding and installing the mitigations — apparently to sacrifice security for performance on Intel. There is also the matter of disabling hyperthreading.


Phoronix did its tests with all default mitigations turned on. That's probably why the 3900x is trading blows with the i9 7960x.


----------



## RichF (Jul 8, 2019)

Aquinus said:


> Phoronix did its tests with all default mitigations turned on. That's probably why the 3900x is trading blows with the i9 7960x.


That's what I expected, since Phoronix seems to be a no-nonsense site. So, my question should be revised:

Has any review site that is testing with Windows, especially a site that is testing a lot of video games, shown the necessary data?

edit: Default mitigations in Windows, as I believe I mentioned, also don't really cut the mustard. I read that MS has made some of them (at least one of them... I don't recall how many) manual installs, apparently to sacrifice security for performance on Intel. There is also the matter of disabling hyperthreading. Default mitigations in Linux, though, might be a bit more comprehensive. I do know that the OpenBSD team disabled hyperthreading and is not the only group of experts to argue that that must be done for full security.


----------



## BluesFanUK (Jul 8, 2019)

Metroid said:


> That wraith prism cooler will be enough for the 3700x, if going 3900x then a better cooler will be needed, watercooling is a must and watercooling is expensive and cost money to be kept and not to mention is kind risk if somehow something is messed up. I had watercooling for years and never had a problem but I used to keep watching it regularly, with air cooling you just leave there and forget.



Nah, the same was said of X99 requiring water cooling, hot chip, even hotter when overclocking. My OC'd 5820K @4.4GHz is absolutely fine with an NH D15. If the 3900x comes with AMD's standard air cooler than an NH D15 is going to be more than sufficient.


----------



## Aquinus (Jul 8, 2019)

RichF said:


> Default mitigations in Linux, though, might be a bit more comprehensive. I do know that the OpenBSD team disabled hyperthreading and is not the only group of experts to argue that that must be done for full security.


I think that might be a little bit much since most of these "vulnerabilities" have only been PoCs and that actually using most of these mitigations (with the exception of a few like Meltdown,) can't be easily or usefully exploited. Most of the spectre variants literally require the stars to align to be useful for malicious intent. To makes matters worse a lot of these "vulnerabilities" require root access to the machine (which if malware already has that, you're already screwed and they don't need these vulnerabilities.) Most of these mitigations are for the case if you're running in a VM because it could *possibly** let you access host memory. For the average user though, most of these mitigations mean nothing.

So, with all due respect, I don't think there is value to doing it. It means something for people writing server applications running in a virtualized environment, not for consumers playing games and browsing the web.

If you don't believe me, then I highly suggest you try to find even one piece of software that's not a PoC showing real world usage of spectre. Then you'll find out real quickly why people (consumers,) shouldn't care.

*: Odds of this are still extremely low.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Jul 8, 2019)

B350 paired with a 3900X


----------



## Xuper (Jul 8, 2019)

FreedomEclipse said:


> B350 paired with a 3900X


So It worked? maybe down clock to 4ghz.


----------



## efikkan (Jul 8, 2019)

I usually recommend people waiting a little bit before investing in a brand new platform. Not only are prices usually inflated at launch, but it's also wise to look for good reviews of the specific motherboards you're interested in, and of course wait for the usual BIOS issues and software bugs to be resolved.
E.g., if I were to replace my primary machine, and probably invest $1000 or more, I would wait 1-2 months. I don't pay top dollar and then waste my time doing "beta testing".

Also, Linux users should be aware of the booting issues described here, the link also mentions how to work around it temporarily.


----------



## Vayra86 (Jul 8, 2019)

Eskimonster said:


> Even Steve says intel is for gaming.



You think? I would much prefer a gaming CPU chugging along at 65-75C than this 8700K that runs into 80+ without even stretching its legs. Let alone a 9900K that will readily push into 100C unless you put a massive heatsink on top. I'll take the minor average FPS gap... because those minimums are just about the same now, and that's where its really at.

Steve might have missed some considerations here I would say. We buy Nvidia GPUs because of performance but also low noise/heat, but we are happy with a top end Intel CPU that can boil water? For what, 5%? That time has passed, seriously. These new Zen chips can get along just fine across the board, and its a clear departure from the previous gen, which was also a bit better than the first. These CPUs are now just fine even for high refresh.

Look at those charts and the actual differences, I mean yes, Steve puts them in some order of performance, but really? Its convincingly samey across the board with a 9900K *with OC*. That is a 200-400 mhz clock speed gap and still Ryzen keeps up.

Now consider the fact that a 9900K cannot even sustain its specced turbo within its stated TDP, as well. A clear change from the Intel norm, despite the fine print under Turbo.


----------



## Bwaze (Jul 8, 2019)

Apparently, there have been some bios improvements that significantly change boost behavior:

The AMD 3rd Gen Ryzen Deep Dive Review: 3700X and 3900X Raising The Bar






As far as I have seen, TechPowerUP's 3900X already boosted up to 4.6 GHz - is this motherboard specific? Was X570 Taichi already performing up to specifications?


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Jul 8, 2019)

Good review. And good job AMD. The chip is very nice but even better for competition and keeping intel some what in check. All the haters need to rethink their position. This is a win for everyone whether you favor intel or amd. Strong competition means the consumers have choice and choice means price wars.


----------



## mstenholm (Jul 8, 2019)

Bwaze said:


> Apparently, there have been some bios improvements that significantly change boost behavior:
> 
> The AMD 3rd Gen Ryzen Deep Dive Review: 3700X and 3900X Raising The Bar
> 
> ...


He (AnandTech) didn't check for BIOS updates before he did the testing. The new BIOS was ready on the 2nd of July, not the 7th as he claims. Anyway he will re-run the tests. As for the Taichi I'm not sure if the version 1.40 that Enhances Ryzen CPU performance for the Extreme X570 is already in the used version 1.30 for Taichi. Time will tell I guess. I couldn't find a 1.40 for Taichi, maybe @W1zzard can?


----------



## Parn (Jul 8, 2019)

The model that interests me the most is the R7 3700X, plenty of cores, high performance and 65W TDP at Core i5 price.


----------



## WhiteSkyMage (Jul 9, 2019)

Hey there,
I want to ask if TechPowerUp has that scene that they light baked in unreal for doing this benchmark and the program that was used to compile inside VS 2019.
I would like to have them so I can do my own benchmark and compare. Could you possibly provide a link? 
*@W1zzard*


----------



## PYRO1125 (Jul 9, 2019)

I would still like to see Windows 10 1809 vs 1903 performance. I can't find it anywhere yet with the new Ryzen CPUs


----------



## Metroid (Jul 9, 2019)

I have watched this review today 







 from gamer nexus and on the 3900x smt off was much much better off, on the 3600x in some cases smt off was better, this might be related to the scheduler on windows 1903, probably there is a problem with more than 8 cores or more than 16 threads on it, however the lows when smt was off is also affected by the smt off, so all in all, that review is a very good watch if you plan to use the 3900x for gaming. He did not test many single thread apps with smt off so we dont know if that might play the right card in the deck.


----------



## PYRO1125 (Jul 9, 2019)

Metroid said:


> I have watched this review today
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Yes I subscribe to Gamers Nexus. Steve is awesome, I saw that review. I also emailed him directly waiting for a reply to see if he will show win 10 1809 / 1903 differences.


----------



## mark84 (Jul 9, 2019)

So temps are holding it back for OCing...
Gamers Nexus showed that disabling SMT can significantly increase gaming results as it then allowed higher OC's (4.4GHz all).

I'm surprised Wizzard didn't think of trying such things. (Or maybe just had no time)

I'd be interested in seeing another look at the 3900X but this time looking at results both stock and OC with SMT disabled, as well as one where you disable 4 cores to effectively make it a 3800X.
Then test again with and without SMT.

If 3900X is held back by temps so much in gaming, the results of the above would be very enlightening for those wanting to focus more on gaming with Zen2.

I have a feeling the 3800X when benchmarks go live will be AMD's best gaming CPU out of the box.


----------



## Metroid (Jul 9, 2019)

mark84 said:


> So temps are holding it back for OCing...
> Gamers Nexus showed that disabling SMT can significantly increase gaming results as it then allowed higher OC's (4.4GHz all).
> 
> I'm surprised Wizzard didn't think of trying such things. (Or maybe just had no time)
> ...



smt off used to be good for intel back in 2009 on the i7 9xx series 4 cores 8 threads, seems like amd might have the same problem with this but on lower end models I think will be less, for example if you see the gamers nexus 3600 review, you will see that leaving it at stock and smt on is the best approach but that does not hold true for the 3900x and that migt be related like is aid before to the scheduler, windows xp and windows 7 was really bad handling smt back in 2009 for intel cpus.









						AMD Ryzen 5 3600 CPU Review & Benchmarks: Strong Recommendation from GN
					

Alongside the 3900X and 3700X that we’re also reviewing, AMD launched its R5 3600 today to the public. We got a production sample of one of the R5 3600 CPUs through a third-party and, after seeing its performance, we wanted to focus first on this one for our initial Ryzen 3000 review.  -




					www.gamersnexus.net
				




The only thing I would like him to do is power consumption while smt is off and undervolting the voltage while keep stock frequency and do some tests.


----------



## Xzibit (Jul 9, 2019)

Didn't you need the latest chipset drivers to complete the scheduling update ?


----------



## brendonmc (Jul 9, 2019)

AMD gave us:
1Ghz CPUs
64bit CPUs
Multicore CPUs
On-die Memory Controllers
8 Core CPUs

Therefore...
If it wasn't for AMD, CPUs probably would still be be:
slow
32 bit
single core
expensive

OMG.  Its a great time to be alive!


----------



## mahoney (Jul 9, 2019)

What's up with some of the benchmarks? Like for instance in Wolfenstein2 at 1440p https://tpucdn.com/review/amd-ryzen-9-3900x/images/wolfenstein-ii-2560-1440.png  the 2700x is faster than the 8700k and the 9900k!! Yet when we saw the benchmarks at the 2700x launch it was slower


			https://tpucdn.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-2700x/images/wolfenstein-ii_2560_1440.png
		

What gives?


----------



## pantherx12 (Jul 9, 2019)

Just popping by to say these are super exciting times. Can't wait to see the 16 core part results.

Shame frequency uplift is lower than expected but great results none the less.

Anyone is very welcome to buy me this as a gift.


----------



## Deathy (Jul 9, 2019)

Metroid said:


> smt off used to be good for intel back in 2009 on the i7 9xx series 4 cores 8 threads, seems like amd might have the same problem with this


Look at the Anandtech article. i7 9700K and i9-9900k. i9 has all the advantages (slightly higher clock and L3 cache) and still in some benchmarks (Gimp, Webtests, Photoscan, Ice Storm) the i7 scores better than the i9 because of no static partitioning and the highly single threaded nature of the tests (and no effect of 100 MHz more clock/ 4MB more L3 cache). So it's a general SMT/HT thing in some benchmarks and not something specific to AMD. Just that with AMD you get SMT nearly everywhere and with Intel its only on the largest and smallest SKUs for a few generations on desktop. So you don't buy an i9 and disable HT, because then you could just buy the i7. And you don't buy a Pentium and disable HT, because that would just suck.  Since you can't get a 6C/6T CPU (or 8/8) out of the box for AMD, it makes sense to test it for some scenarios.


----------



## kapone32 (Jul 9, 2019)

Eskimonster said:


> That value goes into nothing if you buy a expensive 570x



X570 boards are priced from $200 to $1000 with many choices in between. Not only that but with BIOS updates you can use any Ryzen board. I even saw a video yesterday that a B350 with a weak VRM works with the 3900X.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 9, 2019)

kapone32 said:


> X570 boards are priced from $200 to $1000 with many choices in between. Not only that but with BIOS updates you can use any Ryzen board. I even saw a video yesterday that a B350 with a weak VRM works with the 3900X.


It works, but it throttled, remember.
If you are going to run a 3900x or 3950x, I would certainly stick with X570 or a robust X470 board. The VRMs on chipsets below that may not support it well.


----------



## kapone32 (Jul 9, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> It works, but it throttled, remember.
> If you are going to run a 3900x or 3950x, I would certainly stick with X570 or a robust X470 board. The VRMs on chipsets below that may not support it well.



I know I was just replying to the post making it seem like you need an X570 board for 3900X. For me all of my X470 boards are fine. I might even build a PC with one of these new chips but Threadripper is coming!!!!!


----------



## Deathy (Jul 9, 2019)

kapone32 said:


> X570 boards are priced from $200


Make that below $150 once prices have settled (cheapest AsRock X570 is at $155 on Newegg right now, 145 after rebate and that site sucks). And that is still a 4 phase with doublers. And even many decent B450 motherboards will handle the 12 core. It really depends if you want to go t o 1.4V or 1.5V watercooling overclocking (not to mention LN2, which is mostly out of the question on most things not X570). But stock, the 12 core isn't that enormous. That said, the 3xx boards were universally very sketchy and I wouldn't trust them with anything above 8 cores and even the 8 core I wouldn't OC by a lot. 6 cores and below: throw it on a potatoe and max everything.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 9, 2019)

Choose your board wisely.


----------



## kapone32 (Jul 9, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> Choose your board wisely.
> 
> 
> View attachment 126468



Ok I have the following boards and I am confident they will work.

Asus X470 Prime 
As rock X470 Master 
As ROck X470 Taichi 
Gigabyte X470 Gaming 7 

I am a bit confused about the chart stating that the 3950 will not work with some boards in the X470 lineup including a couple that I have mentioned that have up to 2 8 PIN CPU and 12 phases.


----------



## Eskimonster (Jul 9, 2019)

kapone32 said:


> X570 boards are priced from $200 to $1000 with many choices in between. Not only that but with BIOS updates you can use any Ryzen board. I even saw a video yesterday that a B350 with a weak VRM works with the 3900X.


Now when we all have seen the rewievs, and intel is still the king of gaming and super beats 5700/5700x.
i rest my case.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 9, 2019)

kapone32 said:


> I am a bit confused about the chart stating that the 3950 will not work with some boards in the X470 lineup including a couple that I have mentioned that have up to 2 8 PIN CPU and 12 phases.


Clearly that list is not The Gospel. That said, just because it has 2 8-pins and 12 phases doesn't mean it can support it. Not all phases/VRM bits are created equal. Most 12 phase are doubled, not true 12.


----------



## kapone32 (Jul 9, 2019)

Eskimonster said:


> Now when we all have seen the rewievs, and intel is still the king of gaming and super beats 5700/5700x.
> i rest my case.



You are obviously a fan of Intel and there is nothing wrong with that. However making statements like the Super is 9 to 10% faster than the 5700/5700XT but they cost significantly less. You won't know this but AMD GPUs age much better than their NVdia counterparts. As far as gaming goes I suggest you watch the Tech Deals review of the 3600X vs the 8700K.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 9, 2019)

kapone32 said:


> but AMD GPUs age much better than their NVdia counterparts.


Fine wine isn't sour grapes, but can't say they age "much" better. A couple of places did articles covering that. A couple percent here or there is nothing. That shouldn't be a consideration honestly. 



kapone32 said:


> However making statements like the Super is 9 to 10% faster than the 5700/5700XT but they cost significantly less.


That statement is true. Its notably faster, but the xt costs less (uses more power and is louder in its current form). Once AIB versions come out, that lead will be cut in half, prices will go up, noise will go down.


----------



## W1zzard (Jul 9, 2019)

mahoney said:


> What gives?


Maybe Intel CPU security patches, or Windows 10 scheduler, or Wolfenstein game patches, or graphics driver


----------



## yong (Jul 9, 2019)

MP3 encoding can be run in multithreaded mode, if running batch conversion in Foobar2000, fyi


----------



## W1zzard (Jul 9, 2019)

yong said:


> MP3 encoding can be run in multithreaded mode, if running batch conversion in Foobar2000, fyi


Encoding multiple MP3s at the same time, that's not multithreaded. By that same logic you can parallelize anything by running multiple instances in parallel that don't share anything.


----------



## PerfectWave (Jul 9, 2019)

W1zzard said:


> Set your cpu to stock


So in all your test u used the stock frequency without boost?



Vario said:


> Anandtech shows the Ryzen 3000 under full load using less power than the Intel parts, Techpowerup shows it using more.  Maybe Anandtech isn't loading it hard enough.


Anandtech does serious review. Also in other review ryzen use less power.


----------



## Metroid (Jul 9, 2019)

kapone32 said:


> Ok I have the following boards and I am confident they will work.
> 
> Asus X470 Prime
> As rock X470 Master
> ...




Work work, every am4 motherboard with a bios support will work with a 3900x, the question is how stable it will hold that. For those boards I would recommend only a 3700x, 65w will be fine, even with an overclock, it will get to 90w.



"We noticed that, interestingly, our R9 3900X and R7 3700X overclocked with much lower voltage requirements than our R5 3600. Our R5 3600 is a production sample from a third party, so we have two thoughts, here: (1) Most realistically, the R5 CPUs probably aren’t binned as aggressively as the 12-core part, which would need lower voltages for thermal reasons, and (2) the samples AMD shipped had paste left over on them and they were pretested. We don’t suspect they were binned by AMD for reviewers, though we did want to point it out. With a sample size of one each, we can’t draw conclusions -- maybe it’s luck or maybe R5 just runs with a higher voltage. The upside is that the limited R5 core count means it can take the higher voltages as there’s lower thermal density to dissipate. Our R9 3900X could do 4.3GHz all-core at 1.34V to 1.35V, the R7 3700X could hold similar voltages, but the R5 3600 required 1.43V for 4.3GHz all-core. We were able to push 4.4GHz on the 3900X with SMT disabled, shown in our 3900X review that’s still rendering at time of writing this, but we could not reach 4.4GHz on any chip under 1.46V. We stopped at 1.46V as we encountered issues with, predictably, thermals on a reasonable 280mm CLC. We’ll push harder with liquid nitrogen later in the week.

Finally, FCLK will be a big part of memory overclocking later on. We’ve done some infinity fabric FCLK tuning and found no meaningful change when memory is left to our standard test 3200MHz settings, at least not immediately, so we’ll need to table this for now and dig in more later. Keep in mind that we had to write and film 5 content pieces relating to AMD products in just a few days, so some sacrifices were made. Mostly to health, granted, but we did remove some tests from content for later benchmarking.

Finally, related to sacrificing sleep, please be advised that there are definitely going to be grammatical typos in this article. We simply don’t have infinite time, so we won’t comb through it for misspellings. Thank you for your understanding!"









						AMD Ryzen 5 3600 CPU Review & Benchmarks: Strong Recommendation from GN
					

Alongside the 3900X and 3700X that we’re also reviewing, AMD launched its R5 3600 today to the public. We got a production sample of one of the R5 3600 CPUs through a third-party and, after seeing its performance, we wanted to focus first on this one for our initial Ryzen 3000 review.  -




					www.gamersnexus.net
				




I wonder what power consumption it would have with smt off on the 3900x and lowered voltage.



kapone32 said:


> Ok I have the following boards and I am confident they will work.
> 
> Asus X470 Prime
> As rock X470 Master
> ...



Work work, every am4 motherboard with a bios support will work with a 3900x, the question is how stable it will hold that. For those boards I would recommend only a 3700x, 65w will be fine, even with an overclock, it will get to 90




Deathy said:


> Look at the Anandtech article. i7 9700K and i9-9900k. i9 has all the advantages (slightly higher clock and L3 cache) and still in some benchmarks (Gimp, Webtests, Photoscan, Ice Storm) the i7 scores better than the i9 because of no static partitioning and the highly single threaded nature of the tests (and no effect of 100 MHz more clock/ 4MB more L3 cache). So it's a general SMT/HT thing in some benchmarks and not something specific to AMD. Just that with AMD you get SMT nearly everywhere and with Intel its only on the largest and smallest SKUs for a few generations on desktop. So you don't buy an i9 and disable HT, because then you could just buy the i7. And you don't buy a Pentium and disable HT, because that would just suck.  Since you can't get a 6C/6T CPU (or 8/8) out of the box for AMD, it makes sense to test it for some scenarios.



AMD is not Intel, intel fixed the smt few years ago so smt off on intel cpus is useless, now about amd is different and that review on gamer nexus showed us that smt off helps the 3900x a lot.


----------



## Wavetrex (Jul 10, 2019)

I'll just drop this here...





https://geizhals.eu/ , one of the primary price indexers in Europe. That Top 10 is simply nuts...

(Before you ask, it's based on searches and product clicks)


----------



## Metroid (Jul 10, 2019)

Wavetrex said:


> one of the primary price indexers in Europe. That Top 10 is simply nuts...
> 
> (Before you ask, it's based on searches and product clicks)



That x570 aorus elite is the best cost effective motherboard for the price. Also from what I have seeing from reviews all around, the gain in performance from going from b450, x470 to x570 is 1%.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 10, 2019)

Wavetrex said:


> I'll just drop this here...
> View attachment 126512
> 
> https://geizhals.eu/ , one of the primary price indexers in Europe. That Top 10 is simply nuts...
> ...


Gee, who would have thought immediately after a product release that the top 10 searches contain the new stuff.... lol



Metroid said:


> the gain in performance from going from b450, x470 to x570 is 1%.


AKA, none. 1% is margin of error. THere shouldn't be any reason the newer boards perform better due to the chipset. If the board will let the CPU run stock, performance should always be in that 1-2% margin of error.


----------



## Kalyori (Jul 11, 2019)

That chart with the power info is super helpful.

I wanted to ask what takes priority when looking at a board?
Is it the number of phases, the doubler, or the High Side / Low Side FET?

Also what's the difference between 6+6 and just 12?

*EDIT*: I'm considering the 3900X and the Gigabyte Aorus Elite.


----------



## 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)


----------



## Shatun_Bear (Jul 13, 2019)

Wavetrex said:


> I'll just drop this here...
> View attachment 126512
> 
> https://geizhals.eu/ , one of the primary price indexers in Europe. That Top 10 is simply nuts...
> ...



Amazon.com best sellers in processors is just as brutal viewing for Intel


----------



## HD64G (Jul 17, 2019)

A great video for oc seperate ccx in Ryzen 3900X that applies to all Zen2 CPUs and other interesting things


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 17, 2019)

HD64G said:


> 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


Wonder when we will see that chipset driver in the wild... Wasn't there yesterday. Anyone seen it today anywhere?

And he has a great point. . Why isn't that default???????????


EDIT: Latest one for the board I am working on is...... [19.10.16]

What is that he's listing?



Shatun_Bear said:


> Amazon.com best sellers in processors is just as brutal viewing for Intel


Yeah, brutal... brand spanking new inexpensive processors are out versus Intel who's platform has been out for a year... way to think it through.


----------



## HD64G (Jul 17, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> Wonder when we will see that chipset driver in the wild... Wasn't there yesterday. Anyone seen it today anywhere?
> 
> And he has a great point. . Why isn't that default???????????
> 
> ...





			https://www.amd.com/en/support/chipsets/amd-socket-am4/x570


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 17, 2019)

HD64G said:


> https://www.amd.com/en/support/chipsets/amd-socket-am4/x570


Thanks!  Though that doesnt seem to match any motherboard vendor version or convention... wondering if it part of the install package?


----------



## N3M3515 (Jul 19, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> Choose your board wisely.
> 
> 
> View attachment 126468



Good thing i have the X470 Taichi Ultimate


----------



## HD64G (Jul 19, 2019)




----------



## cat1092 (Jul 20, 2019)

At the conclusion of the review, the only con was *no onboard graphics. *

Some time back, onboard graphics was on the back of the MB OEM's. They took the lead of Intel at providing graphics with 1st gen 'i' series & didn't give us as much of a cent in savings & as a result of, reaped the profits for producing a lesser product at higher pricing. Sure, some has the ports for onboard (CPU) graphics, yet that's all. Audio is different, near the best ever, just no new Realtek driver since 2.82 & these were *Vista certified. *Basically, Realtek engineers have been sitting on their cans for a long time with audio drivers, leaving it to the modders (some on this very site) for us to get added features, such as Dolby Digital Live & the DTS variants. Or maybe the MB OEM, still they're confined by what they have to work with.

Seriously, anyone considering this type of CPU will most certainly be running a discrete card, even if it did have onboard GPU chip, which takes away from the raw CPU power. If only for the time being, one laying around, or current used in existing system while saving for a PCIe 4.0 model. NVIDIA jumped the gun in releasing the RTX 2000 lineup, knowing full well that PCIe 4.0 was coming & will be a far less successful line versus the GTX 1000 series. Am sure NVIDIA will come up with something, yet bargain hunters who won't be diving into PCIe 4.0 will be getting steep discounts on the RTX 2000 cards in a few months.

It's simply time to focus on CPU & GPU's as different components, even 4K (& 8K) TV OEM's does this, with the better models having one CPU & OS for the TV, another more powerful to render the picture. In an ideal world, would be best to have both for testing/setup. However this should be on the backs of the MB OEM's, as even the best of graphics combined with a CPU are inferior to cards released in 2012-13, as long as these are rated for 4K. Only advantage being HDMI 2.0 compliant for some onboard GPU chips, most still uses old school Displayport 1.2, hopefully the X570 MB's, or some, will offer DP 1.4 for the few Ryzen 3 chips with onboard graphics.

I'll be looking forward to the release of the Ryzen 9 3950X, by then, there'll be more PCIe 4.0 MB's & surely the Samsung 980 NVMe variants will be the same. Then we'll see the real speed of the PCIe 4.0 NVMe SSD. Maybe in hindsight, this is why I was able to snag a 970 PRO for half of the original price, Samsung knew what was coming & have been working on the real next gen NVMe.

Two-thirds of my X570 build cash is in the bank, thankfully this & other reviews has led me to totally ditch Intel when it comes to performance per dollar.



Eskimonster said:


> That value goes into nothing if you buy a expensive 570x



In one respect yes, when it comes to the CPU upgrade alone.

However, to have the best PCIe options for everything connected, the X570 will be a must have.

Cat


----------



## Domokun (Jul 24, 2019)

Hi W1zzard,

Just wondering if you could clarify why Rainbow Six Siege was excluded from the CPU gaming tests, when it seems to be used for the GPU gaming tests? The reason I ask is because there appears to be some significant performance regressions for the Ryzen 9 3900X with regards to minimum FPS within Rainbow Six Siege and possibly other gaming titles.

For example, when upgrading from the Ryzen 7 1800X, with all other factors (i.e. hardware and software) being equal, the Ryzen 9 3900X performed 13% worse. This was at 1080P with all visual settings set to low or off (aside from anti-aliasing, which was set to TAA 2X, and anisotropic filtering, which was set to 16X). AdoredTV experienced a similar outcome in his review, but the performance delta was smaller. Additionally, the 99th percentile results produced by Linus indicate that something is wrong.

Ultimately, I'm a bit disappointed that an $800 AUD processor is seemingly performing worse than a two year old processor (that wasn't a particularly good gaming processor to begin with) in gaming titles I frequent, and that no tech journalists/reviewers have even made mention of it. In the reviews by AdoredTV and Linus, even when the graphs indicated a problem, they skipped right over addressing it.

Any chance you could investigate?


----------



## W1zzard (Jul 24, 2019)

Domokun said:


> why Rainbow Six Siege was excluded from the CPU gaming tests, when it seems to be used for the GPU gaming tests?


No specific reason, I had to pick around 10 game tests to keep workload reasonable and that's what I ended up with


----------



## Domokun (Jul 31, 2019)

W1zzard said:


> No specific reason, I had to pick around 10 game tests to keep workload reasonable and that's what I ended up with.


Thank you for replying. Do you still have access to Rainbow Six Siege and the Ryzen 9 3900X, and if so, would you be able to verify if the performance metrics I've mentioned above are repeatable? My concern is that the poor performance within Rainbow Six Siege on low settings may be indicative of minimum FPS issues in other titles as well. Unfortunately, reviewers seemingly aren't using game settings other than high/ultra in their reviews (whether at AMD's request or because they believe it to be the most appropriate use case), so verification is difficult. I would have thought the Ryzen 9 3900X being outperformed by the Ryzen 7 1800X would be cause for concern, and that playing games at 1080P on low settings would be a common use case for gamers with high refresh rate monitors.


----------



## woodenhoe (Aug 6, 2019)

Is the winner i3 9100F, right?


----------



## Domokun (Aug 12, 2019)

The inaction regarding the above seems to indicate that TPU intends to turn a blind eye on any issues that may potentially reflect negatively on AMD. That's very disappointing, and I question if there is any integrity left in tech journalism. I'm curious, what is AMD's tactic that has you toeing the line? Incentives or threats? There is definitely an issue with the Ryzen 9 3900X regarding minimum FPS when it is outshined by the two generation old Ryzen 7 1800X, which wasn't a good gaming processor to begin with. You've lost a reader, as the regurgitation of press slides with no critical analysis and no further investigation beyond the initial review (such as examining unobtainable boost frequencies featured in misleading marketing materials and specification sheets) can be had literally everywhere else.


----------



## W1zzard (Aug 12, 2019)

Domokun said:


> The inaction regarding the above seems to indicate that TPU intends to turn a blind eye on any issues that may potentially reflect negatively on AMD. That's very disappointing, and I question if there is any integrity left in tech journalism. I'm curious, what is AMD's tactic that has you toeing the line? Incentives or threats? There is definitely an issue with the Ryzen 9 3900X regarding minimum FPS when it is outshined by the two generation old Ryzen 7 1800X, which wasn't a good gaming processor to begin with. You've lost a reader, as the regurgitation of press slides with no critical analysis and no further investigation beyond the initial review (such as examining unobtainable boost frequencies featured in misleading marketing materials and specification sheets) can be had literally everywhere else.


I've been working 18 hour days every single day since Zen 2 launch, there's just too much going on to follow every request/suggestion


----------



## Tarvaln (Aug 27, 2019)

W1zzard said:


> I've been working 18 hour days every single day since Zen 2 launch, there's just too much going on to follow every request/suggestion


Wizard,
Thank you for your review of the 3900x. I hope you are able to spend less time at work now. 
Myself and others are trying to get our 3900x systems to Max Boost to 4.6Mhz on any Core with various tests. We haven't had much luck getting to those Mhz. Could you please let me know what test and what conditions were used with your results of 4.571. Also, what were you using to view the Mhz on each core?

If you are interested. I've started a topic at https://community.amd.com/thread/242812 if you would like to check out our results and/or contribute.

Thank you.


----------



## Arc1t3ct (Sep 17, 2019)

Hi W1zzard! Thanx for the review!

I'm a little curious about your findings on the thermal characteristics of the 3900X. A lot of other reviewers seem to suggest that the 3900X runs cooler and for much longer than the 9900K.









						The AMD 3rd Gen Ryzen Deep Dive Review: 3700X and 3900X Raising The Bar
					






					www.anandtech.com
				








Also...


----------



## bad_sign (Oct 12, 2019)

Guys you should update your vera crypt benchmarks. I get about 20GB/s AES en-decoding
veracrypt 1.23 with 1003 ABBA, GB X370 Gaming 5, 32GB 3733CL16, 3900X
Picture with internal benchmark


----------

