AMD Ryzen 7 3700X & Ryzen 9 3900X review with benchmarks leaks out

Pointless, no one plays at 720p...

Show some 1080p and up.

 

The point is to show a bottle neck. at 1080 there will be no difference, which is great.

IF this holds true good job AMD Intel needs ridiculous boost clocks to keep that performace crown and you are just steadily chipping away at the 9900K.

 

Cracking Jugs!

 

Do you review GPU here??

ppl need to understand that this is CPU review and there MUST not be GPU limit! or then whats the point when the test is on CPU not the GPU

 

To a degree, i agree. The point is to show a bottleneck. But, if there is no difference at 1080p (we'll have to see), are all reviewers going to review them at 720p? What happens if there's a point where there's no difference at 720p? 480p? and then at 480p? Lower?

I do fully agree that you should run tests that will show what the difference rather then what is, for instance, 4K is nice to see, but hopefully in anyones review, is not the "only" resolution shown, as we all know, it'll show little to no difference.

But how low is...too low? I kinda feel 720p is too low. There are a few people who still game at it, i'm sure, which is why i'm not 100% saying it absolutely is too low, but at a certain point, and 720p is straddling it, it really only works to fuel "intel is king!" comments.

It's the same reason, non-gaming wise, people typically don't review desktop CPUs to massive-server workloads and compare how "horrible" they are at it....it's not realistic.

 

But guys according to AMD you can't stream on Intel processors remember............

And AMD fanboy's say your just gonna get hacked running Intel!!! You aren't safe!!!! Get the aluminum hats out!

 

The only people that game at 720p are people with iGPU's or really really old graphics cards. 1080p is mainstream. In any case can't believe i am seeing people arguing over 7% difference. Intel has a very minor lead no doubt due to the lower latency of the cache and memory controller.

Ironic the 9900K 95w stock in a lot of cases is doing better than the 9900K with MCE i am guessing the CPU must be hitting some sort of limiter like voltage or temps with the exception of ACO where the higher all core turbo allows the MCE configured beat out the the stock one in minimum frames anyway.

No what AMD said was you can stream with the highest quality preset without dropped frames. Like it or not it's the future. 5 years from now you will be like i can't believe we liked the fast preset.

 

720p is certainly an unrealistic resolution (I doubt even competitive gamers would game at such a resolution, as you need a sufficiently high resolution to see opposing players at a distance), it's just the best resolution to use to eliminate GPU bottlenecks. It's relevant in a CPU review, although I would say such testing is mostly synthetic or limited to very specific use cases.

Of course there are many who say such tests are relevant in showing future performance, although that doesn't make sense - it assumes games in the future will be played with a CPU cap due to faster GPUs, but it doesn't factor in rising graphics standards. Even if GPU power quadruples in the next several years, high-end gaming will still be limited by the GPU - after all, 8K monitors/TVs are already coming out, and 8K is four times the pixels of 4K. Technologies like raytracing also imposes a GPU cap even at low resolution so the idea that gaming in the future will be CPU-capped is unrealistic to say the least (if anything, it will be more GPU-bound than ever before).

At any rate, seeing as how the 9900K lost 4 out of the 6 game benchmarks in minimum FPS, I'd say the results are pretty good for Ryzen. The official reviews on 7/7 should tell the full story.

 

But there en-lies my question really:

It's useful in a test because it eliminates GPU bottlenecks. But if you're reviewing a CPU for the sake of gaming, but you use unrealistic settings no one uses, what actual use is that information from a review standpoint which is supposed to guide people on what is good or not for their purpose? Like i'm not saying you should make certain there is a bottleneck, not at all, only be realistic with what people are actually using.

It's why i'm on the fence about my opinion on this subject. To see a review show how a CPU does in a game, no bottleneck, is interesting, i believe it SHOULD be done. But then i see it used constantly for flame baiting, and i just wonder if it's even worth it lol

 

Those results @1280*720 are so stupid!!!... why not take 640*480 or 320*240 or even lower ?!?!?- yeah with 100000000000000000fps
-cause only then you can enjoy with a m³ of coffee the electrons creeping around the nucleus of the atom while laying on the couch!!!!

Just brainless... (Hilbert never does this.... he nows what 2 bench)

 

It's always the AMD guys with the rage fits when using metrics that show a per core and per clock IPC deficit for AMD. If you were fair, you'd not be trying to bias benches to favor AMD. That's brainless.

 

Or the Germans, by the looks of it.

Just joking, of course. Everybody knows Germans prefer 480p.

 

It's a back n forth conversation. It's to show CPU performance. And 720p is a somewhat realistic resolution to game at. 240p is not. You won't buy a CPU based on this alone but it gives us an idea.
I'm grateful for any information on these CPU's right now.

 

There's a pretty big difference from being biased benches to favor AMD, and realistic benches people actually use.

For instance i would agree that someone who says you should only do Ryzen 1000 series gaming tests at 4K, is baised towards benches that favor AMD (or more realistically biased to make it look like there is no difference)

But to state you want realistic benchmarks rather then going to the lowest resolution you can, on a resolution 99.999999999% or even 100% (not talking about 720p, just talking in general) people don't use, should be a reasonable request.

As to it "always" being the AMD guys, not really. Just look at the ryzen 3000 announcement and the streaming



How many people have gone and questioned, tested, and etc. everything about this test and come to the conclusion that, while AMD is technically not wrong, it's completely unrealistic, as it's using unrealistic, and potentially no benefits in quality settings, just to "show the difference".

So AMD does a test that "shows the difference" = People have an issue with it because it's unrealistic

People review AMD processors against Intel in a way that "shows the difference" = People have an issue with it because it's unrealistic.

So really i don't think it should be unreasonable to request realistic benchmarks, all around. Not saying other benchmarks can't be done, the AMD streaming one for instance, it's an interesting benchmark, it shows a factor to Ryzen 3000 that otherwise may not be noticed. Maybe there should just be an "unrealistic testing" page for reviews

 

@Kool64 they where ran at stock clocks on all cpus, @Witcher29 i understand that your a big intel fan but when you look at where amd was and now they come along way,but you must be stuck on 2012 bulldozer days and gpus of today where nvidia will sell you the golden chip just to pop out a newer better one and make you spend more,sure amds gpus are not all that it takes time.

 

We are very close to the end of this bullshit story of Intel is better in games then AMD... this benchmark in games is patetic... 720p man?!? Come on...
But, the singlecore performance of 3700X is virtually equal to 9900K (3%)?!?! To me this is the start of the Intel´s Collapse.... very hard times to the blue side. At 1080p and above the 3XXX series will destroy the Intel sales. And to finish this long talk about best CPU, lets us talking about multicore performance? Man, AMD HUMILIATED Intel.
Come on guys... lets us togheter next week shake hands to the NEW KING CPU!

 

I'd suggest you wait for the reviews and don't look blindly on fps or you'll be ducked like me with my i5 since there's more to a PC than just gaming and more cores becomes more relevant.

 

Meh... New AMD disappoints. Hype train is going to derail soon. I bet in Arma 3/GTAV/CS:GO my antient 4790k@4.8Ghz will outperfom any of new Ryzens... That just sad