• 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.

LSWilson

Member
Mar 10, 2014
90
19
460
Ohio
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 game on a 2600K and a GTX 1060 at 1080P. Still fine for most of the games I play.
 

llien

Member
Feb 1, 2017
9,803
7,721
935
TPU tested memory performance scaling of 3900x, up to 5% can be gained at 1080p:





It seems to be a thing. Anandtech has a new bios update and see's massive improvements.
Anand also didn't apply "Zombieland" security patch to Intel.
 
Last edited:
Mar 23, 2018
6,931
8,312
765
TPU tested memory performance scaling of 3900x, up to 5% can be gained at 1080p:






Anand also didn't apply "Zombieland" security patch to Intel.

Pretty shit benchmark site then lamo.
 

waylo

Banned
Jan 7, 2018
739
1,312
520
I really want a 3600 or 3700. I'm currently on a 4790k and it has served me well, but trying to stream and game on the same PC is kind of difficult sometimes (I get encoding overloaded errors a lot on anything above 720p).
 
Feb 15, 2013
8,897
7,581
855
London
Pretty shit benchmark site then lamo.

Yeah I wonder how many of the review sites applied even some of the myriad security patches to the 9900K and other Intel CPUs in their tests? I'm betting because of the culture of first, the vast majority just used the same numbers from when they reviewed the 9900K last year.
 

SonGoku

Gold Member
Aug 16, 2018
4,759
6,581
635
I'm not defending them, but as I've said already, the reality is that nobody cares about ordinary people and their PC. The best they can do now is Winlock your PC and even then if you're not stupid AF and if you've NIS (for example) on your PC, there's absolutely ZERO chance you'll be in trouble and I can tell you for a fact that it is true.
Point stands they are selling CPUs full of vulnerabilities, that's unacceptable.
I an age where ransomware attacks are common you are telling just don't get hacked breh, people are stupid AF with computers btw
 

Agent_4Seven

Member
May 6, 2012
3,579
1,829
830
I an age where ransomware attacks are common you are telling just don't get hacked breh
Well yeah, that's exactly what I'm sayin'. Or at least don't be stupid enough to store valuable info on your PC and here's just one way to keep it safe:

I just wonder how many ordinary people got hacked cuz of Intel's CPU vulnerabilities in comparison to what they did to themselves by opening emails, clicking on stuff, downloading and opening .exe files / archives and by not having any internet security firewalls on their PCs etc. I really would like to see the numbers, but I'll take a wild guess and say - zero. If you wont be protecting yourself and your valuable data, no one is going to do if for ya.

people are stupid AF with computers btw
Well, that's entirely their own fault if they are.
 
Last edited:
Mar 23, 2018
6,931
8,312
765
Yeah I wonder how many of the review sites applied even some of the myriad security patches to the 9900K and other Intel CPUs in their tests? I'm betting because of the culture of first, the vast majority just used the same numbers from when they reviewed the 9900K last year.


I wouldn't even be shocked if they didn't know about it. A lot of these review sites i got questions with if they even have or test cpu's to start with or just jank numbers from other sites and change them a bit.
 

SonGoku

Gold Member
Aug 16, 2018
4,759
6,581
635
Well yeah, that's exactly what I'm sayin'. Or at least don't be stupid enough to strore valuable info on your PC and here's just one way to keep it safe:


I just wonder how many ordinary people got hacked cuz of Intel's CPU vulnerabilities in comparison to what they did to themselves by opening emails, clicking on stuff, downloading and opening .exe files / archives and by not having any internet security firewalls on their PCs etc. I really would like to see the numbers, but I'll take a wild guess and say - zero. If you wont be protecting yourself and your valuable data, no one is going to do if for ya.


Well, that's entirely their own fault if they are.
Yeah you are not defending and making excuses for intel at all!
They are perfectly within their right to sell exploit ridden CPUs
 
Last edited:

JRW

Member
Nov 29, 2006
2,490
111
1,305
Clovis, California
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 :)

It's weird that you have to disable SMT to make the 3900X competitive in gaming tho, and even then a 9900K is still at the top of the gaming charts and consumes less power than 3900X.

IMO depends what your main usage is going to be when deciding between 3900X / 9900K

 
Last edited:

Agent_4Seven

Member
May 6, 2012
3,579
1,829
830
Yeah you are not defending and making excuses for intel at all!
Exactly, cuz I don't give a damn about any tech company just like they don't give a damn about any of us.

They are perfectly within their right to sell exploit ridden CPUs
They are perfectly within their right to wipe their own ass with their own processors and eat them for breakfast with milk. All I care about is the best performace and if Intel CPU can give me that - I'll buy it, but if AMD can give me that - I'll buy it instead. Simple as that. Same goes for GPUs. I know how to protect myself and my data, more people should do that as well cuz again - no one is going to do it for them.
 
Last edited:
Feb 15, 2013
8,897
7,581
855
London
It's weird that you have to disable SMT to make the 3900X competitive in gaming tho, and even then a 9900K is still at the top of the gaming charts and consumes less power than 3900X.

IMO depends what your main usage is going to be when deciding between 3900X / 9900K


Do you game with a 2080 Ti at 1080p? Because the gap is 4.7% if you do according to TPU's massive bench suite:



4.7% is more or less the same gaming performance between the two. If you own any card under a 2080 Ti, or game in 1440p or 4K, there is literally no difference between the two, so I don't know what you mean by 'competitive'.

Also, the 3900X consumes less power from what I've seen despite 4 more cores?
 
Last edited:

Remij

Member
Apr 23, 2009
2,473
776
1,010
I want the 3900x so bad. But my only concern atm is the x570 motherboard fan situation, as well as BIOS and chipset drivers.

I'm holding off until August anyway, so hopefully the latter two are sorted out by then. I might just end up going with a x470 for the moment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: billyxci

snakeinjohn

Member
Dec 4, 2014
720
266
520
Waiting until 2021 until upgrading. I want to see how it all plays out when the new consoles come out.

The 3700 seems sexy atm, but want to see.

My paltry 4770k(with hyperthreading disabled) will have to do until then. Luckily for me(and my wallet) I'm not too excited about any new games coming out.
 

Zefah

Gold Member
Jan 7, 2007
44,452
25,313
1,805
Does anyone know if there are any tests on first-gen X370 boards? I'm thinking about grabbing a 3900x at some point to upgrade my 1700x, but want to be sure I won't be at a huge disadvantage in terms of performance by using an older motherboard.
 

PhoenixTank

Member
Jul 13, 2017
1,354
1,487
705
Does anyone know if there are any tests on first-gen X370 boards? I'm thinking about grabbing a 3900x at some point to upgrade my 1700x, but want to be sure I won't be at a huge disadvantage in terms of performance by using an older motherboard.
None that I've seen yet. I think Hardware Unboxed at least was going to test on some older boards soon.
 

JohnnyFootball

GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
Jan 20, 2014
11,810
7,328
1,035
I want the 3900x so bad. But my only concern atm is the x570 motherboard fan situation, as well as BIOS and chipset drivers.

I'm holding off until August anyway, so hopefully the latter two are sorted out by then. I might just end up going with a x470 for the moment.
The X570 is drastically more expensive than the X470 no doubt. If you're going for the 3900X, the 570 is probably best motherboard to do that.
Those who are going with the 3700X or lower are likely much better off with the X470 or even B450.

Waiting until August is really a good idea. Day 1 buyers are always going to be beta testers to a degree.
I bought my Asus ROG Strix X570 and 3900X, but I know it will be several BIOS updates before it's potential is truly unlocked.
 
Last edited:

JohnnyFootball

GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
Jan 20, 2014
11,810
7,328
1,035
Does anyone know if there are any tests on first-gen X370 boards? I'm thinking about grabbing a 3900x at some point to upgrade my 1700x, but want to be sure I won't be at a huge disadvantage in terms of performance by using an older motherboard.
I don't have data, but I'd be extremely hesitant to upgrade to a 3900X using an X370. It will likely be fine, but the 300 series of boards had so many memory compatibility issues that who knows how it will behave.
 

llien

Member
Feb 1, 2017
9,803
7,721
935
I want the 3900x so bad. But my only concern atm is the x570 motherboard fan situation, as well as BIOS and chipset drivers.

TPU review has shown that there is no big difference between x470 and x570.
They also separately tested whether PCIe 4 brings anything to Navi 5700/XT, and concluded that nope.
 

DarkestHour

Member
Oct 27, 2015
1,448
719
480
Well yeah, that's exactly what I'm sayin'. Or at least don't be stupid enough to strore valuable info on your PC and here's just one way to keep it safe:


I just wonder how many ordinary people got hacked cuz of Intel's CPU vulnerabilities in comparison to what they did to themselves by opening emails, clicking on stuff, downloading and opening .exe files / archives and by not having any internet security firewalls on their PCs etc. I really would like to see the numbers, but I'll take a wild guess and say - zero. If you wont be protecting yourself and your valuable data, no one is going to do if for ya.


Well, that's entirely their own fault if they are.

Probably zero.
 

Remij

Member
Apr 23, 2009
2,473
776
1,010
TPU review has shown that there is no big difference between x470 and x570.
They also separately tested whether PCIe 4 brings anything to Navi 5700/XT, and concluded that nope.
Yea I know it won't mean anything for GPUs in the short term. I'm not worried about that.. however I do plan on buying a new NVMe drive as well and in general would like the extra lanes/bandwidth... but with the reported issues as well as general newness and costs of the new chipset.. I'm not really sure it's worth it. I likely wouldn't notice the SSD bandwidth increase all that much to begin with.

I'm gonna keep an eye on what happens over the next month. I just don't want to wait too long where retailers mark up the prices further.
 

JohnnyFootball

GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
Jan 20, 2014
11,810
7,328
1,035
Yea I know it won't mean anything for GPUs in the short term. I'm not worried about that.. however I do plan on buying a new NVMe drive as well and in general would like the extra lanes/bandwidth... but with the reported issues as well as general newness and costs of the new chipset.. I'm not really sure it's worth it. I likely wouldn't notice the SSD bandwidth increase all that much to begin with.

I'm gonna keep an eye on what happens over the next month. I just don't want to wait too long where retailers mark up the prices further.
In all honesty, the main reason I went with X570 over X470 is because I knew that the build quality for X570 was going to be top notch. Due to PCI-Express 4.0 the motherboard makers had to go with server grade components and that made me go that way.

Let's head back to the Navi thread so we can start arguing again.
 

JRW

Member
Nov 29, 2006
2,490
111
1,305
Clovis, California
Do you game with a 2080 Ti at 1080p? Because the gap is 4.7% if you do according to TPU's massive bench suite:



4.7% is more or less the same gaming performance between the two. If you own any card under a 2080 Ti, or game in 1440p or 4K, there is literally no difference between the two, so I don't know what you mean by 'competitive'.

Also, the 3900X consumes less power from what I've seen despite 4 more cores?

I've only watched the Gamers Nexus review linked in my original post and he says the 3900x's power consumption is a little high vs what AMD claims but they're going to upload a separate video to go over it in more detail, they did post this chart which shows the 9900K consuming a ton of power when overclocked 5+Ghz but when comparing stock vs. stock it's using less power than 3900X:



I game at 1080P 144Hz with RTX 2070 / i7 8700K I'm totally happy with my current setup and wont be upgrading for awhile but still interesting to keep up on new CPU releases.

I was mainly concerned with the 3900X's SMT enabled performance but it varies by game, this is probably worst case scenario:




But after skimming through Anandtech's review just now it's crazy how much different the results can be from one review to another, I'm just gonna let the dust settle before making any further comments lol.
 
Mar 23, 2018
6,931
8,312
765
I've only watched the Gamers Nexus review linked in my original post and he says the 3900x's power consumption is a little high vs what AMD claims but they're going to upload a separate video to go over it in more detail, they did post this chart which shows the 9900K consuming a ton of power when overclocked 5+Ghz but when comparing stock vs. stock it's using less power than 3900X:



I game at 1080P 144Hz with RTX 2070 / i7 8700K I'm totally happy with my current setup and wont be upgrading for awhile but still interesting to keep up on new CPU releases.

I was mainly concerned with the 3900X's SMT enabled performance but it varies by game, this is probably worst case scenario:




But after skimming through Anandtech's review just now it's crazy how much different the results can be from one review to another, I'm just gonna let the dust settle before making any further comments lol.


Also filtering those things out on avg is bad. They should do it at the 0.1% low which makes the ryzen sit at 87.7 and the 8700k sits at 89, practically the same.
 
Mar 23, 2018
6,931
8,312
765
I've only watched the Gamers Nexus review linked in my original post and he says the 3900x's power consumption is a little high vs what AMD claims but they're going to upload a separate video to go over it in more detail, they did post this chart which shows the 9900K consuming a ton of power when overclocked 5+Ghz but when comparing stock vs. stock it's using less power than 3900X:



I game at 1080P 144Hz with RTX 2070 / i7 8700K I'm totally happy with my current setup and wont be upgrading for awhile but still interesting to keep up on new CPU releases.

I was mainly concerned with the 3900X's SMT enabled performance but it varies by game, this is probably worst case scenario:




But after skimming through Anandtech's review just now it's crazy how much different the results can be from one review to another, I'm just gonna let the dust settle before making any further comments lol.

The thing with SMT off is, the reason why you want to do it is to free up temps to get higher clocks going. So disabling it without pushing higher clocks as he pushes 4,4ghz in that while the cpu is rated at 4,6 it seems like ( probably that bios bug ) is useless.

If they can push that clock to 5ghz or close towards it and the single threaded performance is better then intel that cpu is going to be a total beast even in single cored solutions. However if he can only boost the cpu to 4,4ghz then it's kinda useless.
 
Dec 14, 2008
33,751
2,188
1,360
It's just as well that the 3900X is out of stock. I was ready to impulse buy it today and none available prevents that problem.
 
Dec 14, 2008
33,751
2,188
1,360

Tech Jesus: "What is the ALL-CORE FREQUENCY?"
AMD: "Well, we don't have that."
Tech Jesus: "YES YOU DO!!! THERE IS AN ALL-CORE FREQUENCY!!!!"

LMAO

Even with the BIOS fixes starting to trickle out, no one has actually hit the specified 4.6 ghz single core boost clock on the 3900X. Gamers Nexus says they actually saw 4575 mhz, other reviewers have not gotten even that close.

I wonder if AMD knows what a specification is. Intel does. When Intel specifies an all-core clock and a single-core boost clock, 100% of all the CPU's they sell with that spec will always hit that specified clock. That is what a specification is. Does AMD want to test the limits of what specifications really are? Do they want class-action lawsuits? Because they're asking for lawsuits if they can't actually produce CPU's which can boost to the specs published on their website and written on the box.
 

Ascend

Member
Jul 23, 2018
3,396
4,875
550

Tech Jesus: "What is the ALL-CORE FREQUENCY?"
AMD: "Well, we don't have that."
Tech Jesus: "YES YOU DO!!! THERE IS AN ALL-CORE FREQUENCY!!!!"

LMAO

Even with the BIOS fixes starting to trickle out, no one has actually hit the specified 4.6 ghz single core boost clock on the 3900X. Gamers Nexus says they actually saw 4575 mhz, other reviewers have not gotten even that close.

I wonder if AMD knows what a specification is. Intel does. When Intel specifies an all-core clock and a single-core boost clock, 100% of all the CPU's they sell with that spec will always hit that specified clock. That is what a specification is. Does AMD want to test the limits of what specifications really are? Do they want class-action lawsuits? Because they're asking for lawsuits if they can't actually produce CPU's which can boost to the specs published on their website and written on the box.
If we take the TDP specifications, Intel definitely does not know what a specification is.
 
  • Fire
Reactions: thelastword

Ascend

Member
Jul 23, 2018
3,396
4,875
550
Interesting results on AMD CPU+GPU synergy:



5700XT gains 5fps going from 9900k to 3900x, while 2070 loses 10fps.
You should post that in the 5700 series review thread as well. Practically every reviewer out there tested with a 9900K.
 

Remij

Member
Apr 23, 2009
2,473
776
1,010
Well, there it is, as I always anticipated... RYZEN+NAVI works better together..

Wish to see more benches with Ryzen+Navi tbh.....
No.. there it isn't.


Technical Marketing43 points·1 hour ago

This chart combines three different sources into a single chart. The three reviewers may or may not have used the same settings or scene(s). We're going to look into this out of an abundance of caution, but I would preemptively warn that this data and/or thesis may not be valid. Let's not get ahead of ourselves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PhoenixTank

thelastword

Member
Apr 7, 2006
11,730
11,914
2,000
This is insane...….L3 cache aka Game Cache does a whole lot for streaming.....The new Ryzen CPU's + Navi tears up streaming...

Ryzen CPU (3700X + B350 Board + Radeon Navi 5700) Build.....


 
  • Like
Reactions: Kenpachii
Dec 14, 2008
33,751
2,188
1,360
If we take the TDP specifications, Intel definitely does not know what a specification is.
Intel TDP is well known to be calculated from base clock. AMD isn't exactly close to their rated TDP either when all cores are active so this is throwing stones in a glass house.
 

JohnnyFootball

GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
Jan 20, 2014
11,810
7,328
1,035
That settles that.

Those results seemed too good to be true and, quite frankly, aren't helpful to AMD. It's not good business to dissuade people who are interested in the AMD CPU platform, but are using and nvidia GPUs to say that nvidia GPUs will perform better on Intel's hardware. AMD could get away with that if they were the market leader, but they are not.

Based on all the benchmarks I have seen, there is simply no way that keeping everything the same but the GPUs that Shadow of the Tomb Raider would get 115 fps on a 3900X, but only 93fps on a 9900K.
 
Last edited:
Mar 23, 2018
6,931
8,312
765
AMD Ryzen 5 3600 Review, Price to Performance Champ!


Absolutely true. Honestly i cant make my mind up on what to get really all those ryzen cpu's are god tier products atm. 3700 sits at 9900k core counts, 3600 on 8700k core counts and they are cheap as hell on top of it.

Intel will have to drop a new series of CPU's sooner then later or drop the prices drastically to keep being valid. Atm the only edge intel has is on high core counts and emulation but that's it.

And honestly with the 3000 series single core performance increase i wonder if that still edges out on intel. Sadly can't find any info.
 
Last edited:

llien

Member
Feb 1, 2017
9,803
7,721
935
No.. there it isn't.
Yes it is, just don't compare apples and oranges.

That settles that.
How so? Try to re-align these results between 3 different reviewers, so that the AMD + AMD doesn't work better than AMD + nVidia:

Vega VII
3900x - 119,0
9900k - 111,3
8700k - 108,3

5700XT
3900x - 115,0
9900k - 109,8
8700k - 110,3

2070
3900x - 93,0
9900k - 102,8
8700k - 104,1


When I think about it, AMD drivers like AMD CPUs more than nVidia's (which for years ignored Buldozers), which still have Intel optimized codebase.

Diff is not night and day anyhow.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Insane Metal

Remij

Member
Apr 23, 2009
2,473
776
1,010
Yes it is, just don't compare apples and oranges.


How so? Try to re-align these results between 3 different reviewers, so that the AMD + AMD doesn't work better than AMD + nVidia:

Vega VII
3900x - 119,0
9900k - 111,3
8700k - 108,3

5700XT
3900x - 115,0
9900k - 109,8
8700k - 110,3

2070
3900x - 93,0
9900k - 102,8
8700k - 104,1


When I think about it, AMD drivers like AMD CPUs more than nVidia's (which for years ignored Buldozers), which still have Intel optimized codebase.

Diff is not night and day anyhow.


They're from different setups, different testing methodologies, running different memory, running variations in clocks, running possibly different sections of the game, running with possibly different bioses and windows installations.

There's a million reasons not to trust that data... or to even pay it any mind.
 

llien

Member
Feb 1, 2017
9,803
7,721
935


They're from different setups, different testing methodologies, running different memory, running variations in clocks, running possibly different sections of the game, running with possibly different bioses and windows installations.

There's a million reasons not to trust that data... or to even pay it any mind.

Sure thing.
Now try to re-shuffle them so that "runs better on AMD" conclusion is changed.
 
Dec 14, 2008
33,751
2,188
1,360
Best Buy has preorders up for 3900X (unknown ship date) and I had a leftover GC and also they offer you 10% off on a single product of your choice during the month your birthday falls in, so I threw my order in.

Now I need to think about a motherboard for the CPU, though no one knows when they will start to ship so I have time to think about it I guess. There's already 65 different X570 motherboards available for sale on Newegg. I'm pretty sure I'm not going to buy the cheapest $150 ones nor am I going to blow a wad of dosh on the $700 ones, but even in the $200-300 range there's a dizzying array of options already from MSI, Asus, Asrock, and Gigabyte.

I've actually owned motherboards from all 4 companies over the years so the brand name isn't particularly meaningful to me. My current gaming PC is on an Asrock X99 Taichi so I'm looking at the X570 Taichi, but my media PC is on an MSI Z170 Tomahawk and 2 previous generations of gaming PC's were on Gigabytes (X58A-UD3R and whatever the Core 2 Duo board was back in the day). Since I've been on Intel the past 15 years, I don't really know what these companies have been doing on the AMD side with current Zen chipsets like Z370/470 and B450, anyone have comments or experiences to share about the AMD motherboards these days?
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
44,897
17,286
1,770
Best Coast
Best Buy has preorders up for 3900X (unknown ship date) and I had a leftover GC and also they offer you 10% off on a single product of your choice during the month your birthday falls in, so I threw my order in.

Now I need to think about a motherboard for the CPU, though no one knows when they will start to ship so I have time to think about it I guess. There's already 65 different X570 motherboards available for sale on Newegg. I'm pretty sure I'm not going to buy the cheapest $150 ones nor am I going to blow a wad of dosh on the $700 ones, but even in the $200-300 range there's a dizzying array of options already from MSI, Asus, Asrock, and Gigabyte.

I've actually owned motherboards from all 4 companies over the years so the brand name isn't particularly meaningful to me. My current gaming PC is on an Asrock X99 Taichi so I'm looking at the X570 Taichi, but my media PC is on an MSI Z170 Tomahawk and 2 previous generations of gaming PC's were on Gigabytes (X58A-UD3R and whatever the Core 2 Duo board was back in the day). Since I've been on Intel the past 15 years, I don't really know what these companies have been doing on the AMD side with current Zen chipsets like Z370/470 and B450, anyone have comments or experiences to share about the AMD motherboards these days?
Do all the X570 boards have that tiny fan on them?

That would probably be my deciding factor if I were to buy one.
 

Spukc

Member
Jan 24, 2015
16,628
17,342
920
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.
Let me unhaze your memory amd is still shit in 2019
 
  • LOL
Reactions: Insane Metal