• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hey Guest. Check out the NeoGAF 2.2 Update Thread for details on our new Giphy integration and other new features.

AMD's Ryzen 3000 Review Thread: More Cores, More Threads.

thelastword

Member
Apr 7, 2006
11,731
11,928
2,000































Preliminary Reviews/ Preview and Leaked Benchmarks

https://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-9-3900x-and-ryzen-7-3700x-cpu-review-leak-gaming-benchmarks/


Reviews
 

Ivellios

Member
Mar 26, 2015
1,657
1,133
655
Brazil
Cant wait for the reviews tomorrow.

Im also curious about the price of the new x570 motherboards as well.
 

SonGoku

Gold Member
Aug 16, 2018
4,759
6,581
635
The AMD Ryzen 7 3700X is an 8 core and 16 thread part featuring the 7nm Zen 2 core architecture. The chip features a base clock of 3.6 GHz and a boost clock of 4.4 GHz. There’s 36 MB of L3 cache, 40 PCIe Gen 4 lanes (CPU + PCH) and a TDP of 65W (derived from the base frequency).

Wasnt it 32MB? This CPU will be beast in consoles even at 3.2GHz
 

Vlaphor

Member
Jul 25, 2011
3,523
1,920
1,020
Kansas
Tomorrow is when I will decide I will keep my I4790k for a while longer, or upgrade. This CPU is 5 years old, but doesn't feel like it. Still, 3x the cores at a reasonably low price sounds too good. Still, I would need to get a new Mobo and ram as well, and maybe a new power supply just to be safe, since this one is kind of old.
 

SonGoku

Gold Member
Aug 16, 2018
4,759
6,581
635
Tomorrow is when I will decide I will keep my I4790k for a while longer, or upgrade. This CPU is 5 years old, but doesn't feel like it. Still, 3x the cores at a reasonably low price sounds too good. Still, I would need to get a new Mobo and ram as well, and maybe a new power supply just to be safe, since this one is kind of old.
Might as well wait for next gen
Cheaper prices and better tech
 

Leonidas

Member
Mar 6, 2007
2,619
2,903
1,820
Early review can be seen here. $500 12 Core 3900X trades blows with 30 month old 4 Core 7700K (~$330 in 2017) in gaming workloads.

Good to see AMD making progress with faster CPUs every year but it appears Intel, with it's recent struggles, still holds the gaming crown.
 
Last edited:

Insane Metal

Member
Mar 11, 2006
26,176
20,014
2,180
Br
Early review can be seen here. 12 Core 3900X trades blows with 30 month old 7700K (Quad Core) in gaming workloads.

Good to see AMD making progress with faster CPUs every year but it appears Intel, with it's recent struggles, still has the gaming crown.
Genuine question since I don't understand: why are those benchmarks at 720p?

Edit: curiously enough, according to those benchmarks in AC:O the Ryzen 2 seem to be at the top, while with Zen 1 both Ryzen and Threadripper seemed to struggle.
 
Last edited:

Leonidas

Member
Mar 6, 2007
2,619
2,903
1,820
Genuine question since I don't understand: why are those benchmarks at 720p?

Stolen from Reddit

At the risk of a lot of downvotes, I figured I would try to explain why testing CPUs at low resolutions is important. I am seeing a lot of misinformation and rationalizing for why we shouldn't test at low resolutions like gamers playing at high resolutions and all, but honestly, when you test CPUs, you actually want to test the CPU. Including benchmarks at high resolutions can be nice to give people who game at higher resolutions an idea how their system performs, but all in all, to actually TEST the CPU, you want to test at low resolutions.


Benchmarking tests are a lot like scientific trials. You want to link an independent variable, to a dependent variable. In this case you want to test how your CPU runs at gaming. What you don't want interfering with your trials is other variables. You want to CONTROL the environment, and ensure that the only factor at work making a difference is the thing you are testing. EVERYTHING ELSE should be controlled for, as it does not interfere with the result.


When you game at low resolutions, you are doing just that. When you test at high resolutions, you are introducing a third variable into the mix: the graphics card. When you test at high resolutions, it's possible that the GPU is taking on more stress from the system, and this could be the primary variable affecting results, NOT the CPU. This gives the viewer the impression that the CPUs are performing more equally than would in a more controlled setting.


To minimize the stress of the GPU, you want to test at max settings (since settings CAN impact CPU performance), and you want to test at as low of a resolution as possible. I'm seeing joking comments asking, what are tests only valid if you test at 640x480 or something? Well, let me put it this way. If you're running a GTX 1080 at 640x480, you're not going to be GPU bound in most games. You would be testing the CPU, and this would lead to more valid results, since that's what we are testing.


This isn't to say that high res benchmarks can't be good. It's good to test at higher resolutions to give people some baseline expectations to how it will perform in a real world environment, but testing at low resolutions is more important, because it tells you how the CPU will perform under stress, and this could give an indication of the long term performance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Denton and Shakka43

Leonidas

Member
Mar 6, 2007
2,619
2,903
1,820
Hmmm.................... :pie_thinking:

Lol yeah we should test them the way it's used to play, that's for sure.

Depending on the resolution/game that's a mostly GPU bound scenario.
For example, if you're gaming at 1440p or 4K, the slowest 6 Core Ryzen 1600 ($100) will be within single digits of the fastest 16 Core Zen 2 Ryzen 3950X ($750). Not a good way to test the CPU...
 
Last edited:

SonGoku

Gold Member
Aug 16, 2018
4,759
6,581
635
Depending on resolution that's a mostly GPU bound scenario. For example, if you're gaming at 1440p or 4K, the slowest 8 Core first gen Ryzen will be within single digits of the fastest 12 Core Zen 2 Ryzen. Not a good way to test the CPU...
A more practical test would be to test games that punish CPUs at 1080p and up
What is the point of buying a cpu for "top gaming performance" if it will provide the same results as the cheaper alternative for your target resolution.

Sure you could argue is more future proof but the way forward for games optimization is multithreading and as such 8 cores and up will be more beneficial than high clocks that show an advantage at 720p
 
Last edited:

grfunkulus

Member
Dec 23, 2016
716
303
350
A more practical test would be to test games that punish CPUs at 1080p and up
What is the point of buying a cpu for "top gaming performance" if it will provide the same results as the cheaper alternative for your target resolution.

Sure you could argue is more future proof but the way forward for games optimization is multithreading and as such 8 cores and up will be more beneficial than high clocks that show an advantage at 720p

Simple. Because the test was conducted with a single 1080ti. That's not the maximum amount of graphical horsepower available so unless you're going to find two 2080tis, an easier way to reveal the true upper limits of the cpu is to bump it down to 720.

And it's a review. They're supposed to be scientific. Seems a little biased to come to a reviews thread and then lament the fact that the testing method wasn't more practical and didn't focus on 1080p AND up (as if esports at 1080p 240+fps doesn't matter).

BTW, I'm buying a 3700x in all likelihood. I think it's a waste of a comment/disengenous to suggest we don't look at more lightly thread workloads because that's 'not the way forward' or some other limiting bs. Not everyone plays AAA open world games exclusively smh
 
Last edited:

SonGoku

Gold Member
Aug 16, 2018
4,759
6,581
635
Simple. Because the test was conducted with a single 1080ti. That's not the maximum amount of graphical horsepower available so unless you're going to find two 2080tis, an easier way to reveal the true upper limits of the cpu is to bump it down to 720.

And it's a review. They're supposed to be scientific. Seems a little biased to come to a reviews thread and then lament the fact that the testing method wasn't more practical and didn't focus on 1080p AND up (as if esports at 1080p 240+fps doesn't matter).

BTW, I'm buying a 3700x in all likelihood. I think it's a waste of a comment/disengenous to suggest we don't look at 720p because that's 'not the way forward' or some other limiting bs. Not everyone plays AAA open world games exclusively smh
It was more targeted at people that say they'll get Intel for top gaming performance but if that lead only shows at 720p its a mute point.
You could make a point for competitive gamers with high refresh rate monitors (140Hz+) at 1080p/1440p

edit:
Im not lamenting either, they should keep their 720p tests but also add 1080, 1440p and 4k comparisons to give readers an idea of performance for each resolution target and judge if its worth it for them. That's the point of reviews after all! to help buyer decision.
 
Last edited:

JohnnyFootball

GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
Jan 20, 2014
11,811
7,328
1,035
Testing at 720p is fine for the sole purpose of determining of how fast the CPU is in CPU limited situations. However, it is not remotely relevant to gamers. Nobody is buying a Ryzen 3700X and/or 9900K for the purpose of gaming at 720p.
A benchmark at 1080p absolutely needed to be there.

Having said that, the review interestingly picked 3 games have hugely favored Intel. Reviews from Hardware Unboxed, JayzTwoCents, GamersNexus and Pauls Hardware should have a bigger variety of games.

Either way, the 3700X looks like the big winner here. Solidly competes with the 9900K and over $100 less. It makes me very curious what the 3800K can offer over it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ivellios

Insane Metal

Member
Mar 11, 2006
26,176
20,014
2,180
Br
I can't even imagine what devs will cook with 7 zen 2 cores (assuming 1 reserved) and 36MB cache.
I don't expect the console counterparts to have the same amount of cache at all. It'll be some form of 'lite' CPU. But even so, yeah I agree. It's gonna be great.
 
Last edited:

xPikYx

Member
Jun 23, 2019
1,029
1,988
370
I don't expect the console counterparts to have the same amount of cache at all. It'll be some form of 'lite' CPU. But even so, yeah I agree. It's gonna be great.
doesn't need to be, in fall 2020 these cpus will be more than 1 year old
 

SonGoku

Gold Member
Aug 16, 2018
4,759
6,581
635
I don't expect the console counterparts to have the same amount of cache at all. It'll be some form of 'lite' CPU. But even so, yeah I agree. It's gonna be great.
I think they might, 8 core Zen 2 chiplet with 36MB L3 is just 75mm2 after all
 

kegkilla

Banned
Aug 1, 2007
305
576
1,090
Losing out to the 4 year old Skylake 7700k in many cases is concerning to me.
 

Insane Metal

Member
Mar 11, 2006
26,176
20,014
2,180
Br
Losing out to the 4 year old Skylake 7700k in many cases is concerning to me.
Well the Threadripper 2950 is in last on that FarCry 5 figure... so it's one hell of an upgrade. Also, the i9 7980XE (18c/36t) is behind the 7700 also.
 

xPikYx

Member
Jun 23, 2019
1,029
1,988
370
Where are these CPUs? No review and nobody is selling them.
????????
 

Agent_4Seven

Member
May 6, 2012
3,584
1,833
830
and no security risk in leaving HT enabled either.
There's absolutely ZERO security risk of leaving HT enabled. Literally no one give a fuck about you, about your PC and never will, just like for the last 10 years of so. All of this "Security" nonsense in regards to Intel's CPUs is pure bullshit and normal / regular people should just ignore it completely.
 
Last edited:

KungFucius

Member
Jul 16, 2008
1,831
698
1,120
It was a nice surprise to see all the stuff available on Newegg this morning. I have never been so hasty to buy whatever I could get my hands on. I went for the ASRock $200 mobo largely because it gave me a 30 dollar combo deal with the Corsair M2 SSD I was already going to get. I went with the 3700x CPU. Again I was largely just guessing. It seemed like the sweet spot.
 

shark sandwich

tenuously links anime, pedophile and incels
Jun 9, 2012
3,866
1,632
760
A more practical test would be to test games that punish CPUs at 1080p and up
What is the point of buying a cpu for "top gaming performance" if it will provide the same results as the cheaper alternative for your target resolution.

Sure you could argue is more future proof but the way forward for games optimization is multithreading and as such 8 cores and up will be more beneficial than high clocks that show an advantage at 720p
Yeah CPU reviews WRT gaming have kind of been a joke for a long time. They turn the resolution way down to emphasize the CPU differences.

But at resolutions gamers actually play at, there is very little contrast between CPUs. Maybe a couple % difference among the top 10 CPUs, and what little difference there is is almost all due to single threaded performance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SonGoku

Vlaphor

Member
Jul 25, 2011
3,523
1,920
1,020
Kansas
Watched a couple of reviews and it seems that the 9900k slightly outperforms the 3900X in terms of gaming, which means it's going to be about as useful as my 4790k, at least for now. Microcenter has the 9900k for slightly cheaper than the 3900x, so it makes little sense to drop the money for either one now.

Either 4790k is an absolute beast, or CPU's have just been at a complete standstill for awhile.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thenoo
Feb 15, 2018
1,533
1,007
400
United States
They seem to be amazing chips looking at Paul's hardware review.

Watched a couple of reviews and it seems that the 9900k slightly outperforms the 3900X in terms of gaming, which means it's going to be about as useful as my 4790k, at least for now. Microcenter has the 9900k for slightly cheaper than the 3900x, so it makes little sense to drop the money for either one now.

Either 4790k is an absolute beast, or CPU's have just been at a complete standstill for awhile.
4790k will be good until next gen.

Crazier to me that fucking sandy bridge will be a viable CPU for 9 years and the better half of another by the time ps5 launches.
 

JohnnyFootball

GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
Jan 20, 2014
11,811
7,328
1,035
Well, in terms of gaming and strictly gaming the 9900K is still the best, but if you do gaming and anything else, getting AMD is a no brainer.

The 3700X stole the show as far as I am concerned. If you are in the market for 8C/16T there is simply no reason to spend $450+ on a 9900K, when you can save the money and get a 3700X.
 

JohnnyFootball

GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
Jan 20, 2014
11,811
7,328
1,035
Amazon hasn't gotten the memo. None of them are available to buy yet.

Available at Microcenter, but I can't order online for store pickup. Newegg is sold out of the 3900X
 

Vlaphor

Member
Jul 25, 2011
3,523
1,920
1,020
Kansas
I really wish these reviews would talk about 4k performance. I know that at 4k, it becomes mainly gpu bound, but I'd still like to know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Celcius

JohnnyFootball

GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
Jan 20, 2014
11,811
7,328
1,035
I really wish these reviews would talk about 4k performance. I know that at 4k, it becomes mainly gpu bound, but I'd still like to know.
That's just it. Measuring at 4K becomes a GPU test.

The good news is that almost any CPU is fine if you're gonna game at that resolution.
 

Spukc

Member
Jan 24, 2015
16,681
17,460
920
I really wish these reviews would talk about 4k performance. I know that at 4k, it becomes mainly gpu bound, but I'd still like to know.
Same
I want the i9 9900k to be beaten and good this is... well eh?
 

joe_zazen

Member
May 2, 2017
4,564
7,277
615
Linus review :O

Legitimate curb stomp.

Approx four or five years ago, intel cut expensive senior engineering staff to boost profits, betting on amd continuing to be shit...well, lol.

I wonder if intel will be able to pull the same illegal shit they did back in the Athalon days in order to stop uptake of amd chips in the market. My memory is a bit hazy on the specifics, so i dont know how likely it is.
 
Feb 15, 2013
8,900
7,583
855
London
The 3700X is within 1-3% of the 9900K in realistic gaming resolutions of 1440p and up yet consumes less power and costs significantly less.

The 3900X is the same in gaming more or less yet absolutely trounces the 9900k by up to 45% (!!!) in some productivity tests for the same price.

It was nice knowing you Intel :)
 
Last edited:

JohnnyFootball

GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
Jan 20, 2014
11,811
7,328
1,035
Same
I want the i9 9900k to be beaten and good this is... well eh?
In gaming performance the non-overclocked 3700X lags around 3-5% in the 9900K, but is $150 cheaper. There is no "eh?" about it. Thats $150 savings can go towards other parts. $150 is the difference between 2060 and 2070 Super. $150 could be put towards getting a 2080 Super or Ti. $150 is the difference between being stuck with a HDD and a M2 drive.

AMD kicked Intels ass and given that the 9900K has little overclocking headroom and with a little overclocking the 3700X is the CPU to buy if you want an 8-core CPU.
 
Last edited: