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

And most of them work fine with 2 despite 4 at minimum... (but it's not good for industry).

It seem to have pretty descent performance.

 

The problem with Intel 10nm is that their chips tend to have more density. We really don't know by how much because they stopped publishing it. So at lower scale Intel is having problems with heat and high frequencies. That is the reason why, they can do it on Laptops and not on Desktop... But that's just matter of time. AMD HAVE!!! to lead otherwise they can be pretty much thrown to the rubbish in 1 or 2 years.

 

Seems kinda weird that there is practically no difference between 3900x and 3700x, probably the chosen games just do not use more threads so it doesn't matter. This would also explain the AC:Origins result that probably does utilize more threads and where both Ryzens are on top.

 

It was 4 years ago info and it was right at this moment, but no more.

The only major issue with AMD is the distribution of their production.
The company focus on some countries (Germany, France, Netherland, US, UK and Asia) and it is still really hard to put the hand on their product in some place (and again Amazon and other doesn't deliver everywhere as some believe in).

This is even a bigger issue because their target is "mainstream plus" consumer (if you can have a system with Intel + Nvidia set in a few hour and a Ryzen + Radeon set next week (or month) for the same price. Wich one would you chose?). Also the AMD price is... strange (if you have a single concurrent at least you should take care of their price to get aggressive.)

AMD is lot better but Intel is still far away despite some attack because they were sleeping, it will be hard to get AMD at the point they were in the 90' but i am confident.

(Also i am not blue, green of red fanboy, i take what seem the best at the moment)

 

Nice results from AMD. Their performance is growing steadily with each release while Intel´s performance remains stagnant for well know reason... As for gaming, the most important performance factor for many here, me included, it still favors Intel but the margin is very thin, so thin i think it´s better to buy an AMD CPU and then buy a better GPU due to the price difference between Intel and AMD. Can´t wait for Hilbert´s review!

Also why is the forum slowing turning into a giant flame war between fanboys suddenly???...

 

It's not "suddenly", it is like that at each CPU release (Blue Vs Red) and at each GPU release (Green Vs Red)...
it turn like "which is stronger the Elephant or the Hippo?" "The hippo is really really strong" "Yes but the elephant is better, the elephant can grab stuff with nose"... etc etc

 

It's not dead at all, they still rules in the laptop market.

 

Everybody talking about benchmark chasing and how tight the race is between a 3900x and a 9800k

I'm over here in 2019 with an 8350 just excited that I'm finally getting an upgrade in a week or so, regardless of who's CPU I get

Hey hey, I'm not a fanboy in either regard, but this is a very old article.. AMD's Z-score is above 6 now IIRC

 

Oh dear, utter bulls#@t. The shill collective is growing strong here. The mods are going to be very busy in the next few days.

 

this thread post, why many people become fanbois ? lol

u guys know performance war is good for consumer
either we getting more performance product or if they cant fight in performance, then they will forced to reduce their product pricing which either way is good thing for us, no ?

even intel fanbois should be happy, i mean intel still have tons of cash in them which giving them edge in business, even now AMD winning, intel wont stay silent and let their competitor take the crown for long, wont they ?

but again like stephen king said, "Life is like a wheel. Sooner or later, it always come around to where you started again." ... so yeah no-one stay on top forever

 

I consider testing at very low resolutions like 720 or less as a valid tool to show raw performance of the CPU , but one must be aware that in real world the 1080 and higher is what matters little bit more . My problem with this type of " leaked test " is the obvious bias picking and showing only the tests where one manufacturer looks better than the other depending which side the particular fanboy supports . I am not coming to conclusions untill I see FULL test from independent tester and then base my decision on the whole picture not just cherry picked bits .
Not long now .

 

I don't care if its blue or red tbh. All I know my 3-4 year old 6600k is dead for gaming right now and AMD is giving an excellent option tomorrow for around 400€ (mobo+cpu) If I can sell my current CPU/mobo its going to be one of the biggest upgrades I've done in a while for such a low price.

 

Somehow expecting it to reach the levels of performance of 5ghz cpus is interesting when max boost isn't that high on AMD. When game leverages all the cores AMD just wins. Also older games most likely will have optimizations on Intel that AMD won't have.

 

fps is not a CPU performance metric. frame time is.

 

I have to disagree with you here on this. One only needs to look at the FX CPU’s and their launch. At the time all we had was the GTX680 at the top spot so it performed about identical at 1080p compared to the 2600k. Now a days you can pair a 2070 with a FX and a 2600k and see a huge difference at 1080p.

The test has its relevance however I do feel game developers WILL focus more on the Zen architecture now that the new consoles will be using them.

 

Same data...

But wrong way to show them ( sort by average frames per seconds, descending order):



Better way to show them (frame time, sort by maximum frame time, ascending order):

https://i.**********/B6QKqP98/right-way.png

They don't look so dramatic, right?

And still doesn't reflect real CPU values since nobody would play at 720p with those CPUs. Moreover we do not know anything about deep settings involving microcode updates and security fixes, nor if the so damn "acclaimed" OS scheduler fix for Ryzen 3000 is enabled or not (Windows 10 1903 is a necessary condition but is not enough). Yes all this is annoying but this is today hardware world, things like OS kernel patches, microcode updates and security fixes may change the results that little bit the graphs changes.

EDIT: just to be clear, low resolution settings may involve different driver and game rendering path behaviours (it's pretty sane and logic to associate low-resolution with low performance hardware and do different optimisations in the code), which may add further reasons to not test at those resolutions. Games benchmarks are meant to (should?) represent real and common game performance, they are not synthetic benchmarks (even accurate synthetic benchmarks may fail to represent real CPU performance if they are unable to take advantage of a particular hardware architecture, like a new SIMD extension set or a high number of cores). And this is both for negative results and positive results (like AC:Origins).

 

The forums here have been high on the toxicity side of things for a while. Cant even pinpoint where it all turned real bad, but at this point you can probably get more intelligent interaction on wccftech.

 

Lol, Frametime and FPS (FramesPerSecond) are closely correlated values.

They mean basically same thing.

In both cases getting temporal min FPS or max Frametime is completely useless statistic.

What you want to measure is 1% lows, which define an average FPS drops on demo, benchmark you're using.

Your min FPS or max Frametime can occur for any reason and should not be indicator of performance. A median from FPS drops or Frametime spikes would be best to have.

 

They are multiplicative inverse: 10 fps difference doesn't mean anything. 120 fps vs 130 fps is NOT the same damn thing about 40fps vs 50fps.
I know frame time is not the best measurement method (I simply used the same data), but FPS is the worst.