AMD Ryzen 9 3900X

[Eskimonster]

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]

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]

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]

Some really funny tidbits to look back on:

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.

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

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]

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]

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

Good job AMD!

 

[Shatun_Bear]

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.

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]

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

 

[Eskimonster]

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]

Yep AMD lied with their BS marketing gaming slides LMAO

 

[Endeavour]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Very solid release.

 

[quadibloc]

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]

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]

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]

• 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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.