Review: AMD Ryzen 7 3700X & Ryzen 9 3900X

Looks like i dont need to worry after all, il wait to see what intel bring next year
My 8700k at 4.7ghz all cores will defo last till then

 

Will last you another 5 years, unless you're one of those yearly upgraders. Which is honestly throwing away money.

 

@JOHN30011887 Yep that 8700K doesn't need replacing really, good job to because as for Intels desktop roadmap next year...... effectively nothing interesting at all until 2021/22

 

You know even in BF5 we can see 161fps. Which would mean that going all low we could see 200fps most likely. Sure it won't look pretty but when my friend was playing counter strike competitive it was 800x600 resolution with 300+ fps. Because competitive is just that.

And it will lose to intel some but alas in competitive gaming it's just fine. It's not as good in few games sure where you can leverage the power of lets say 2080 ti with really high settings like bf5.

 

Guys do you think its necessary to buy the recommended/qualified ram from list of vendor for x570 mobo,
or just buy at random say gskill trident z 32gb 3600mhz ram that the parts number is not listed on the manual?
Would i run into issues or shud i stick with what the manual recommends?

 

With Ryzen you are way better off buying ram on the QVL. Other ram will probably work but it's very possible you'd run into some kind of issue.

 

Will there even be a Zen2+? I read somewhere a while back that there will be in 2020 and it will be the last on AM4 socket.
But now,seeing more recent road maps they show a jump from zen2 directly to zen3. Did they scratch it or they don't show zen2+ in the road map not to cripple zen2 sales?

 

There's no evidence of a Zen 2+, and Zen 3 is supposed to be for 2020.

I'd say because there's no evidence that anything will significantly change with the next-gen consoles.

Current consoles already have 8 core processors. Considering the speed of those cores doesn't really affect the games ability to utilize more then 4 threads and utilize 8-core processors effectively, then the new consoles with the same amount of cores doesn't change that fact, and game developers will continue to do whatever they want. Now, if these Zen 2 based CPUs in the consoles have 16 threads, this "may" help console developers move into the high core, high thread market, but there's simply no guarantees. Games are obviously getting more multi-threaded every year, but the fact is, if we base our ideas off of the consoles releasing, then we should have had pretty wide 8 (or 7 core) support throughout games since 2013, and that simply hasn't happened.

 

Thing I like about the 3700x is that its a 65w part (anything above it is 105w). Its the highest perf/watt CPU that is currently available on the planet I believe. Since not much OC headroom (even on water), may as well stick to the Wraith cooler that comes with it, which makes it even better value.

 

You are confusing TDP and actual power draw.

I know this is total system but the negligible use of a video card and fans in the MT load does not make up that extra 100W.

 

I totally agree^....why would Intel not send a cooler? .....I've always thought that was totally stupid.

 

it seemed to be the case after watching 10 different video reviews but derbauer nailed the coffin

Ryzen does not overclock well and doesn't even run at the advertised "boost" speed (a bit like the 5800 videocards and their fake boost "temporary" values) :/
from what he says there's no hope for better as the scaling becomes bad fast (he has already tested ln2)

(edit:nevermind you measured the entire system load ok)
quick question what do you do to get those 200w+ for a 9900k ?
aida64 stress test only shows me 190w for the cpu @5.1Ghz but the corsair HX850i says 300w input-280W output overall
(edit: omg just for +100Hz going from 5.0 to 5.1 today my temps went from 80-85 to 95-100 no thx !)

 

I really question this graph, i did when i first saw it. Not even questioning the results for the ryzen CPUs, but rather the 9900k, which we all know takes massive amounts of power when it gets into its boosting modes. It almost looks like this is a 9900k, without boosting....

If you look at others results, you get much different results. Not trying to invalidate the results here, i just don't understand them as we know the 9900k is exceptionally power hungry.

This has already been discussed multiple times and i am relatively certain that exact post has been posted multiple times. Read the thread before you post.

But more importantly, it appears the boosting, POSSIBLY, may be a bios issue, as reported, previously in the thread if you had bothered to read it, since a new bios released after testing has already gotten the boost of the 3900x to perform more like it should. It's not 100% at its advertised yet, but not only does it start where it should, it's also boosting higher then the review bios'.

 

Here the full load of the 3700X seems 90.20W. But maybe it's a much weaker test or just a different motherboard?
https://www.anandtech.com/show/14605/the-and-ryzen-3700x-3900x-review-raising-the-bar/19

I'm pretty much fine running my CPU at 90-100W full load. But I don't think I'll want to have it at more than that.

 

This chart was in the back of my mind when posting.

 

Awsome Review as usual HH thank you sir. Question for the Gurus now which cpu schould I upgrade to iam still on Fx 8 core ? Do I go for the new ones mentioned here or save a little money and go with the 2000 series? In need of a new cpu big time. Thanks guys.

 

Really depends on your budget. Get a B450/X470 motherboard and a Ryzen 5 1600/2600(X) and you'll see a very decent performance increase. You have lots of options

 

2600X is a good valid option. If you don't mind spending tad more for the pcie4 feature get 3600 for example.

 

I don't think there's any reason reason to go for a 1000 or 2000 series CPU when you can get a 3000 series for $200 that'll completely blow your FX series away even with 6 cores instead of 8.

But, this ofcourse depends on your budget. Best bang for the buck will likely be in the 3000 series, but if it's beyond your budget, then that's that lol

I'd say there's a bit more of a benefit over the 2600x then just PIC-Express 4.0 which isn't even a thing unless you get an x570 motherboard, of which a 3600 will have no problems being in an b350 and up motherboard

GN has a review of a sample of the 3600 if someone wants to see the differences, but put simply the 3600 will do much much better in games if you're CPU bound then the 2600, as well as have better or similar performance in non-gaming workloads as even the 2700x

 

As Aura89 said, the 3600 if you can stretch to it would be the better or maybe the best option. Just get yourself on the AM4 platform it makes the most sense.