AMD Announces Ryzen 7 3700X, 3800X and Ryzen 9 3900X

What kind of HTPC needs 8 cores

People ripping with them or something

 

Hi there

I will probably go with 3900X, just need find right board with right amount of PCI_E slots(5 at least) and 8 SATA ports(10 preferable)

I was thinking getting ThreadRipper but will see

Hope this helps

Thanks, Jura

 

editing videos...

 

wouldn't that be "production PC"?

HTPC means home theater PC = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_theater_PC

People creating content in cinema and theaters this days instead of consuming it?

 

in the past that would be true. but - cell phones and YouTube

 

So clocks end up a little slower then predicted. If that 3700-3800x manages 4.7 - 4.8ghz it would be good enough for me

 

I don't follow your logic.

For YouTube content creation, you use "Production PC" or "Media Creating PC" or "Video Editing PC" or "Content Creating PC", NOT HTPC. You use HTPC to watch youtube or consume content , NOT create it.

Boy, I am angry today!

 

I need something to replace my 5820k : 6cores - 4.55Ghz , in the 300-400$ budget, AMD pretty please.

 

For the people dissapointed/complaining at the clock speeds: the early 2000s called, they want their 10Ghz CPU's back.

This is the line in the article that matters:
"In the keynote three processors are announced. The IPS, by the way, should be up by 15 to 25% overall combined with an increase in clock frequency."

This means that the 3000s performance per core equals the 2000s performance per core, plus ~200mhz PLUS 15% (that's IPC).

Now go check all the benches of the 2700x (at stock), put another ~5% (clock increase of 200mhz) and another 15% to the results and you should get a rough ESTIMATED performance of these new chips (per core).

That's very comparable to the 9900k at stock, if not better. So, really, these clocks are actually pretty good all things considered.

 

Not sure if this slide been shared, it shows good performance boost on games that doesn't benefit from core count. So decent single core performance boost.


Now to wait for benchmarks that matters.

 

So reading up on the Ryzen 9, it's more than likely that there will be a 16-core variant in the future. I'm wondering if I should hold off on it as I'd like the full core complement. I'm also curious about the APUs - a 8c/16t Ryzen 5 with a Navi die would be pretty sweet.

@Hilbert Hagedoorn For the review, it might be prudent to test cross-core communication on the Ryzen 9 vs the Ryzen 7/5. The Ryzen 9 is the only CPU with two chiplets so there may be a bit more latency when communicating across them. Just a suggestion, of course.

 

Higher clockspeed has per say, nothing to do with IPC (Instuctions Per Cycle). What you refer to is higher single threaded performance, which is an effect of IPC and clockspeed.

If you want to compare IPC, you have to equalize the clockfrequency, i.e. run the CPUs at identical clockspeed and measure the performance of each CPU while executing the same task.

If you want to measure single threaded performance, you just leave the CPUs as is and run a single threaded task while measuring performance of each CPU.

So, please understand, IPC and single threaded performance are not the same and, as I said previously, the latter depends on the former.

 

Even if that is IPC for you it's not IPC. It's just your odd view on it. Not quite sure what level the IPC difference is and how these will overclock. But if the AMD parts can be oc'd on par with intel they should be faster easy.
If IPC = ghz AMD would have won with bulldozer and the like but they didn't. Also 13+ years where did you pull that AMD fell behind with bulldozer and that is 8 years ago. Could argue that they fell behind with phenom but it wasn't so clear cut. And 13+ they were still ahead.

 

Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. Could be elementary lack of understanding of what I wrote or selectively trying to manipulate reality to fit his own desires or beliefs.

 

I'd say Intel is batting 0 these days...did you see the lame comparison which they jerry-rigged a test with their latest mobile offerings, showing their latest 4c/8t iGPU to be ~10% faster than Ryzen 7 Vega mobile 4c/8t in several games? Problem was, Intel used 3.733GHz ram for their product but restricted the Ryzen to a meager 2.4 GHz system ram speed.. Info is buried in their fine print. Only way they could claim a win, I guess! And this "5 Ghz turbo on all cores" is really putting bandaids on their much older tech! Several questions about that. AMD is running over them, imo. The PCIe4 game demo last night was impressive!

 

It's been somewhat "confirmed" by both Gamer Nexus and Tech Yes City channels.

Backstage inside info photos below from ES 16core Ryzen 2 sample.

A Threadripper 2950X running at 4.2GHz scores ~3300 just for reference in CB R15.

 

That kind you use to play games on big screens

 

Only problem for small builds (at least matx) is that i/o s**ks bad. Hope some manufacturer could do decent matx x570 boards. With decent I mean 4 or 5 fan connectors, dual m2, 8 usb on the back, 3.1, etc.

 

I think AMD might hold something up on their sleeves. The 5Ghz boost was promised and maybe it will come on some "Black Edition" Ryzen3000 release.

 

3700X = 9700K and 3800X = 9900K in gaming/single thread performance. That is absolutely fantastic. I wait for reviews, upcoming motherboards and will be looking for a 3600/X/3700X.

It's also nice to have the fans back like on Zen+ models.