Updated AMD Ryzen 3000 chipset drivers and power profile

[phanbuey]

I can't help but feel that the 3800X is in a bit of a pinch this generation. This time around, it's not the top dog - that title belongs to the 3900X and soon to be 3950X. And this time, it's really feeling the clock constraints of 7nm.

At the same time, the 3700X is a much more potent SKU than its counterparts were last and last last generation. The frequency gap is much smaller between the two compared to Ryzen 2000 and 1000, where 3.6GHz is actually pretty respectable. The 1700 and 2700 felt more like Core-T processors than anything, sacrificing steady state performance to meet an artificially imposed TDP (the 1700 being an even lower end product due to having an extra SKU (1700X) as buffer between it and the 1800X). This time around, with the 3800X, it really doesn't have much to gain over the 3700X. In addition, with the wild game that is 7nm consistency, that gap is narrowed even further.



That's not the problem...if you don't want to put up with Ryzen 3000's current issues, don't buy Ryzen 3000 before AMD and the vendors fully iron out these issues that come with a new platform. What makes you think a 3600 is going to be any smarter than a 3700X at managing idle clocks, voltages and boost speeds? What makes you think a 3600 is going to be any less susceptible to AMD's typical wild silicon lottery?

Now, if you want to get a CPU with great value, then the 3600 is for you. But don't make it about the 3600 being somehow a more solid product than the other SKUs.

800x's are always kind of not worth it - 1800x at $499 was in the same boat. They scrapped 2800x altogether and 3800x is again not worth it. They push the mid range products so far that the 'high end' has an extra 50-100 mhz, which is basically nothing.

 

[tabascosauz]

800x's are always kind of not worth it - 1800x at $499 was in the same boat. They scrapped 2800x altogether and 3800x is again not worth it. They push the mid range products so far that the 'high end' has an extra 50-100 mhz, which is basically nothing.

I mean, they are all unlocked, so there's really nothing that a 2700 can't do, but I was more referring to their base clocks. Without changing anything, the 2700 seemed to be particularly intent on saving power compared to the 2700X, and the 500MHz base clock difference seemed to actually make a difference in game benchmarks, for example.

That was one of the reasons I held off on the upgrade for so long, despite the fact that my rig was really feeling the age and weariness. Then came along the 3700X; I guess it's a great thing that AMD achieved this kind of efficiency/performance on just a 65W TDP and 88W socket power cap, but the 3800X is having an identity crisis now because of it. This whole "get higher clocks the more money you pay" rule doesn't seem to make any sense at the top end.