• 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.

wtftad

Member
Jun 6, 2014
519
304
535
Available at Microcenter, but I can't order online for store pickup. Newegg is sold out of the 3900X

My microcenter isn’t open yet. If you are on the east coast can you let me know if you snag one? They always post they have items in store only but are usually not in stock in the actual store.

Thanks in advance!
 

JohnnyFootball

GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
Jan 20, 2014
11,810
7,328
1,035
My microcenter isn’t open yet. If you are on the east coast can you let me know if you snag one? They always post they have items in store only but are usually not in stock in the actual store.

Thanks in advance!
Nope Im in the South. I'd give them a call and see what they can do for you.
 
Last edited:

JohnnyFootball

GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
Jan 20, 2014
11,810
7,328
1,035
Hmmm,

I just watched the Hardware Unboxed review and it's odd that his results gave Intel far and away the best performance results compared to others. His results make the 9700K look best for gaming.

Hardware Unboxed is one of my favorite reviewers and I trust his result.

So there's that.
 
Last edited:

Agent_4Seven

Member
May 6, 2012
3,570
1,822
830
Yep. I'm good with my 8700K @4.8 GHz on all cores and there's no reason for me to question my new Z390 build:messenger_sunglasses:
I don't give a damn about video rendering and stuff like that which tends to be aimed for workstations.

I can't wait for Leonidas to come in here and tell us that Rise of the Tomb Raider (the game Intel handily wins) is his favorite game and the game that matters most for all gamers.
Shadow of the Tomb Raider is a much better game and the best in the trilogy.
 
Last edited:

JohnnyFootball

GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
Jan 20, 2014
11,810
7,328
1,035
Leonidas meltdown incoming 5, 4, 3, 2, 1......
If he goes by the Hardware Unboxed results, then he will have plenty to gloat about. For some reason it seemed like Steve (the reviewer) got results much more favorable to Intel and he mentioned he was disappointed in several games. The 9700K and 8700K came out looking pretty good in his results. The 3700X is indisputably a better value than the 9900K.

To be clear, Steve at Hardware Unboxed is one of my favorite reviewers and his word carries significant weight.
 
Last edited:

Ellery

Member
Feb 17, 2019
1,593
2,921
525
35
Manches, Amsterdam, Berlin
Those CPU fall within what I expected them to be. In some games they are very close to the 9900K like Shadow of the Tomb Raider or even better than the 9900K in Resident Evil 2 Remake, but in others like Far Cry 5 they are noticeably worse.

Overall okay. I think the 3600 and 3700X offer good value, but the 9900K remains gaming king. It is going to be interesting down the line 2-3 years from now.
The 3900X is amazing if you do stuff that makes use of the 12c/24t, but for purely gaming it seems like a waste.

Power consumption and thermals make a good impression.
 

JohnnyFootball

GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
Jan 20, 2014
11,810
7,328
1,035
Those CPU fall within what I expected them to be. In some games they are very close to the 9900K like Shadow of the Tomb Raider or even better than the 9900K in Resident Evil 2 Remake, but in others like Far Cry 5 they are noticeably worse.

Overall okay. I think the 3600 and 3700X offer good value, but the 9900K remains gaming king. It is going to be interesting down the line 2-3 years from now.
The 3900X is amazing if you do stuff that makes use of the 12c/24t, but for purely gaming it seems like a waste.

Power consumption and thermals make a good impression.
The worst thing the 9900K has going for it is that it's pretty much a dead end as far as upgradability. That probably doesn't mean much though.
Here is the question I have to ask:
I'd argue that 3700X is much better for the simple fact that the $150 can go towards a better GPU and M2 SSD etc. $150 can be the difference between somebody getting a vanilla 2060 and a 2070 Super or be money that would enable somebody to up to a 2080 Ti when they would otherwise get a 2080. That $150 savings absolutely does matter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sdrawkcab
Feb 15, 2013
8,897
7,581
855
London
Difference in gaming is 1-2% average at 1440p, and that's benching using a 2080 Ti....so much for the 9900K 'gaming king'.

 

JohnnyFootball

GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
Jan 20, 2014
11,810
7,328
1,035
I have yet to have any issues getting the performance I want out of my 3570k and 980ti for games at 1440p. So, unless something looks particularly impressive, I'm not inclined to upgrade.
I can appreciate that. In many ways, I envy you because by the time you do upgrade it will be like night and day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kegkilla

longdi

Ni hao ma, fellow kids?
Jun 7, 2004
8,291
5,567
1,865
In theory the 3900X is the most value / cores.
For hardcore neogaf, we are better off waiting for 3950X the 16 cores dude and call it a day until PS6.
Thats my plan at least.
My 5960X lasted a whole PS4 generation and im still happy.
 

JohnnyFootball

GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
Jan 20, 2014
11,810
7,328
1,035
Difference in gaming is 1-2% average at 1440p, and that's benching using a 2080 Ti....so much for the 9900K 'gaming king'.

Depends on the game. If Tomb Raider, Far Cry and Hitman are YOUR games and all that matters Intel performs remarkably well in those.
 

Ascend

Member
Jul 23, 2018
3,388
4,863
550
If he goes by the Hardware Unboxed results, then he will have plenty to gloat about. For some reason it seemed like Steve (the reviewer) got results much more favorable to Intel and he mentioned he was disappointed in several games. The 9700K and 8700K came out looking pretty good in his results. The 3700X is indisputably a better value than the 9900K.

To be clear, Steve at Hardware Unboxed is one of my favorite reviewers and his word carries significant weight.
Steve is a mixed back. One can't argue with his numbers, but sometimes his choices for testing and his conclusions are a bit awkward. I'll use a GPU example... When he revisited the GTX 970 this year, he somehow decided to compare it to the R9 290 instead of the R9 390, despite him comparing it to the R9 390 all the years prior. When multiple people said he should have included the R9 390 (not replaced the R9 290 with it), he called those people fanboys and that the R9 390 and 290 perform the same and there's no reason to test both. I think the reason for that article/video was more about getting views than really putting the 970 against its competition. He simply didn't want to put any bad light on the GTX 970. Oddly enough, he shortly after releases a video comparing two exact same nVidia RTX 2060 GPUs where only the brand is different, to see if branding matters....

For CPUs it's the same. It's not really consistent. So the best thing is to look at his numbers and draw your own conclusion, rather than following his conclusions and stories he wants to tell. He actually tries to gain more views by feeding the fanboy wars multiple times.

....9700K still remains the best 'pure' gaming CPU money can buy.
 
Last edited:

PhoenixTank

Member
Jul 13, 2017
1,354
1,487
705
Hmmm,

I just watched the Hardware Unboxed review and it's odd that his results gave Intel far and away the best performance results compared to others. His results make the 9700K look best for gaming.

Hardware Unboxed is one of my favorite reviewers and I trust his result.

So there's that.
Still going through videos here but Linus benched with RAM at 3600Mhz while Hardware Unboxed benched at 3200Mhz.
Of course, no monkey business with different RAM speeds on different vendors. However, Infinity Fabric is tied to ram speed so it could make the difference, especially with AMD touting 3700-ish Mhz as the sweet spot.
Edit: Not a huge difference in the memory scaling tests on HU 🤔

Another one for you guys. 3900X draws less power than the 9900K despite 4 more cores!

My new nickname should be cherry, as I like cherry-picking :messenger_beaming:

Got a link to the main article? Image is hotlink protected.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Coulomb_Barrier

JohnnyFootball

GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
Jan 20, 2014
11,810
7,328
1,035
Here is the thing I have not seen anyone else bring up:

The 3800X seems dead in the water. Looking at the benchmarks comparing the 3700X to the 3900X, I have a very hard time seeing what value the $70 premium the 3800X could potentially have over the 3700X.
Maybe the 3800X is binned to overclock better.

I dunno, but I can't think of any reason to pick up the 3800X over the 3700X.

To be fair, we haven't seen benchmarks of the 3800X as reviewers were only sent the 3700X and 3900X, but it's still puzzling.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: thenoo

JohnnyFootball

GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
Jan 20, 2014
11,810
7,328
1,035
Steve is a mixed back. One can't argue with his numbers, but sometimes his choices for testing and his conclusions are a bit awkward. I'll use a GPU example... When he revisited the GTX 970 this year, he somehow decided to compare it to the R9 290 instead of the R9 390, despite him comparing it to the R9 390 all the years prior. When multiple people said he should have included the R9 390 (not replaced the R9 290 with it), he called those people fanboys and that the R9 390 and 290 perform the same and there's no reason to test both. I think the reason for that article/video was more about getting views than really putting the 970 against its competition. He simply didn't want to put any bad light on the GTX 970. Oddly enough, he shortly after releases a video comparing two exact same nVidia RTX 2060 GPUs where only the brand is different, to see if branding matters....

For CPUs it's the same. It's not really consistent. So the best thing is to look at his numbers and draw your own conclusion, rather than following his conclusions and stories he wants to tell. He actually tries to gain more views by feeding the fanboy wars multiple times.


I can't say I've ever gotten that impression about Steve. I've felt that he does his best to keep AMD fans happy.
 

TheAdmiester

Member
Jan 28, 2014
6,001
436
585
Get outta here, Leonidas told me that real gamers play at 720p and 480p with their 2080ti's.....
Can't tell if you genuinely don't understand, or are purposefully ignoring just to troll as usual, but here.

"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 "
 

xPikYx

Member
Jun 23, 2019
1,028
1,988
370
at the moment on Amazon processors are not available for 1 day deliver (probably not in stock) and can;t find any mini itx motherboard, very disappointing so far, I was expecting huge stocks
 
Feb 15, 2013
8,897
7,581
855
London
Get outta here, Leonidas told me that real gamers play at 720p and 480p with their 2080ti's.....

Lol. '9900K is still the gaming king' line being spread by those that dont know FA they're talking about.

I don't know how many times I'm gonna have to repeat that the irrelevent ~5%~ gap at 1080p is ONLY when using a 2080 Ti at said unrealistic res. The fanboys repeating that 'gaming king' line are probably sitting there with a GTX 1060 or 1070, which is hilarious.

Same BS at Ryzen 2000 launch when the difference between a 2700X and 9900K wasn't even noticeable to the naked eye back then, now the gap is virtually non-existent on paper let alone one that's noticeable! We're talking 1, 2, 5% yet productivity performance advantages of 20, 30 or 45% in some cases for the 3900X over 9900K, it's a bloodbath!
 
Last edited:

KungFucius

Member
Jul 16, 2008
1,826
694
1,120
I have yet to have any issues getting the performance I want out of my 3570k and 980ti for games at 1440p. So, unless something looks particularly impressive, I'm not inclined to upgrade.
I am upgrading from that CPU. For me the system has some aging issues. It stutters on some games even at 1080p/ It also seems to have EMI problems ( thunderstorms cause flaky HDMI response). The system is so old it barely had any USB 3.0 ports which makes it annoying to have to dig to find a fast port for drives. Plus the thing has dust from both sides of the country in it. The biggest upgrade though is the PCIe Gen4 M2 drives. Pricey, but I really want to see how fast the thing responds. I just did a 9500k build for the family room TV and the Gen3 M2 drives are great compared to my old SATA SSD. And like the last system, I intend to keep it for 8 or so years so I am using that fast drive as the excuse to upgrade now as the x570 is the first chipset to enable that. Plus I hate intel. I worked there and it was a sweat shop for PhDs and the 9500k had a flaky GPU that wasted so many hours of my life and caused me to have to spend on a dGPU when all I wanted was decent iGPU for a media center. This also caused an unnecessary RMA for a mobo manufacturer because nobody expects the CPU to be bad. 5 defects per million my ass.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
44,895
17,286
1,770
Best Coast
Good to see the performance arms race back on again. I'm hungry for some high level number crunching.

These numbers from AMD are impressive. In real world experience, I'm not sure if the slight difference in gaming is all that perceptible to the end user.

What I can say for sure though, is that minutes saved on rendering jobs for professionals does make a significant difference. These are some big improvements.
 
Last edited:

Ivellios

Member
Mar 26, 2015
1,657
1,133
655
Brazil
Here is another Ryzen 5 3600 as well.


This guy is not a famous big youtuber or anything, but his reviews and benchmarks are really informative and well explained.

JohnnyFootball JohnnyFootball he even recommends the same motherboard you did for this CPU, the MSI B450 Tomahawk, because of the BIOS flashing without CPU.
 
  • Like
Reactions: llien

LordOfChaos

Member
Mar 31, 2014
11,771
7,169
985
This means AMD actually took the IPC crown, at least for a time. Having lived through 16 years of their CPUs largely whelming, wow, just wow, feels good to be able to unreservedly recommend them again like the A64 days. Ice Lake will expectedly take it back in short order, but it only seems to be able to clock high enough for ultrabooks for the time being.

 

JohnnyFootball

GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
Jan 20, 2014
11,810
7,328
1,035
I’m in Microcenter and they sold out of the 3700X and quite a few people bought Navi GPUs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thenoo

Ellery

Member
Feb 17, 2019
1,593
2,921
525
35
Manches, Amsterdam, Berlin
Difference in gaming is 1-2% average at 1440p, and that's benching using a 2080 Ti....so much for the 9900K 'gaming king'.



I mean I play at 1440p with a card worse than a 2080 Ti and I am buying an AMD Ryzen 7 3700X, but what sense does it make to show differences of CPUs by running scenarios which are mostly GPU limited?

I could now scream LOOK AT THE 170$ 9400F BEING BETTER THAN THE 500$ Ryzen 9 3900X !!!!!!!!!!!!!! if we go by that chart.

The 9900K is the gaming king. There is no discussion about and seeing it any other way just means you are wrong.
 

xPikYx

Member
Jun 23, 2019
1,028
1,988
370
I mean I play at 1440p with a card worse than a 2080 Ti and I am buying an AMD Ryzen 7 3700X, but what sense does it make to show differences of CPUs by running scenarios which are mostly GPU limited?

I could now scream LOOK AT THE 170$ 9400F BEING BETTER THAN THE 500$ Ryzen 9 3900X !!!!!!!!!!!!!! if we go by that chart.

The 9900K is the gaming king. There is no discussion about and seeing it any other way just means you are wrong.
the 9900k is the gpu king but in average only for the 2%, while for the whole system usage that pci e 4.0 may do a big difference
 
Jul 30, 2009
8,349
866
1,055
Well, the 3700x looks to be the overall value champ. Really impressive stuff AMD.

For gaming it looks like a really great choice too, unless you can get a good deal on an intel bundle (sometimes the cpu+mobo bundles go for crazy prices): the 9700k is similarly priced, and upgrading from Intel to Intel would mean keeping the ram no issues. But still, I'd rather give up a small performance for a newer platform, more cores and more brute force for other tasks.

It's going to be fun seeing comparisons. For consumers it's a great scenario; it was about time.

For anyone doing heavy workload stuff other than gaming it's a no brainer.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: PhoenixTank

Mattyp

Gold Member
May 29, 2017
1,681
2,541
550
So these are half the dye size of the 9900k right and still slower for gaming? AMD hit 7nm with this release didn't they?
 
Last edited: