1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

AMD Ryzen 7 3800X surfaces in Geekbench, performs roughly similar to Core i9 9900K

Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Jun 21, 2019.

  1. Ricardo

    Ricardo Active Member

    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    55
    GPU:
    1050Ti 4GB
    If you need more powerful CPU and don't mind spending 80€ more for it, then instead of buying a 9900k for $470 you should look at the 3900x, which has 8 more threads and same single-threaded performance for just $30 more. That's 50% more threads for ~8% more money. Or, you know, save $70 and pick a 3800x that should perform about the same as a 9900k, since <5% performance delta is imperceptible in the real world.

    Also, your statement of "lower latency" (compared to what?) and "hassle with finding high frequency memory kits" is pretty silly.
    Here is one kit I found in 5 seconds:
    https://www.amazon.com/Corsair-Vengeance-3200MHz-Desktop-Memory/dp/B016ORTNI2?th=1
    Please stop making things up to complain about.


    If stock Ryzen performs close/the same as a 9900k @5ghz, then what's the point of comparing overclockability? It's literally the same performance with less/same hassle. You could argue that the 9900k can go to 5.2ghz, but that's only 200mhz as well, and we don't know how much further Ryzen can clock, but AMD has stated that with good cooling their Precision Boost can easily add another 100mhz to those Zen2 processors, so that's pretty much the same performance again, and with no manual overclock.


    Intel released many new chipsets with far less features, and even broke compatibility between generations for no good reason (Skylake to Coffee-lake). So x570 is far more relevant than many other historical chipset launches.


    All the leaks point at the 3800x either being as fast as the 9900k or slightly faster/slower. So I don't know how you got to this "barely scratched" conclusion, since we're talking about two processors that perform about the same with a $70 price difference. Choice here is pretty obvious.
     
  2. vbetts

    vbetts Don Vincenzo Staff Member

    Messages:
    14,670
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    GPU:
    RTX 2070FE
    Not at all. Netburst could overclock to 6ghz on LN2 yet showed no real performance difference from 3ghz, mind you that's double the the stock frequency and also at least double if not more power draw and heat. With no scaling, even on an every day overclock which was around 3.5 to 4 ghz or so you are getting no real benefit in performance when scaling is almost none. Bulldozer is a great example of this, 4.5 ghz was very easy on an 8120 from 3.1 ghz stock. That's an increase of 1.45x the clock, yet had almost no real scaling. Overclocking is more than just numbers on clocked frequency, it's how it scales and performs. You can argue Ryzen CPU's only having an increase of 300-400 mhz on average is a bad overclock, but data shows scaling with that overclock is no issue.
     
    SplashDown likes this.
  3. oxidized

    oxidized Member Guru

    Messages:
    198
    Likes Received:
    29
    GPU:
    GTX 1060 6G
    The boost doesn't matter, that's not overclock, that's something they did themselves, i don't care about that, you don't take into account boost when you talk about overclock-ability of a CPU, nobody has ever done it. No it's not and what you think doesn't matter because you're talking about boost as if it's part of the overclocking ability of a CPU, it's not, what you can gain when you buy that Processor is 200Mhz, end of story. There's really no arguing here.
    Exactly, not the only difference, so that's worth buying, even just because they improved stuff, like VRM, besides, say i want to buy a x470, how am i going to make my CPU work if it's still not supported from the bios of said mobo?

    I'm challenging what you and a couple other fans say, without not taking a look at those pics, which are leaks, but they are probably true, since we're very close to launch and someone already has the possibility to test those chips.
    No it doesn't need to be cheaper just because it's AMD, but it was like that in the last 10 years, and when people bought AMD CPUs was solely because their pricing, since, except ryzen they were very poor products, and AMD was literally out of CPU market for decent amount of years, to regain a spot there you can't just claim stuff and price your products not checking the market first.
    x299 platform isn't a good choice for gaming, while it's a good choice for working, but i need both, and best of both worlds isn't x299 platform, besides i said it won't be a problem, but not that i want to waste it.

    Again that BS of taking into account boost...So according to your point of view, even first and second ryzen were good overclockers! Please.

    5% more performance in single threaded isn't imperceptible, for many of the games i play.

    Compared to intel, infinity fabric is still not delivering the same performance as intel's ring bus. Yeah like it wasn't a think with previous generations, "you need to get b-die memories, with decently high frequency in order to pull out most from ryzen" Infinity fabric will always be too bound to memory frequency, that's why you need good ram, with high frequencies a good timings. That kit sucks.
    What? Where did you see that? None of the CPUs in that test were overclocked, both a stock speeds, with boost ofc, but that doesn't matter, it's not overclock, not manual or "aftermarket", basically not overclock. The 9900K is a shi**y overclocker too, but we're talking about a processor based on an old architecture on old lithography, pulled already at its maximum, and it still goes up, 200Mhz are nothing, but, the overclocking ability of these 2 processors shouldn't be compared, as one should have a clear advantage, but it doesn't, the other is just at the end of its life basically.
    That's why i would buy a x570 if i bought a 3800X, and not a x470.
    Not in single threaded, no, 14% is a pretty big number, and it's not "the same" and it's totally worth 80€ of difference in price. Oh no it really isn't.

    So to make an example you bring up a 20 years old architecture? Scaling with their CPUs is as good as intel CPUs, but the overclock is just less, so what does this mean?
     
  4. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,411
    Likes Received:
    1,345
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    I didn't say the boost clock by itself was an overclock. I'm saying getting all 8 cores to the boost clock is in effect an overclock, because those 8 cores otherwise can't reach that speed by default.
    When it comes to 4 cores or less, nobody gives a crap about pushing a CPU to boost clock speeds because the thermal difference isn't great enough. When you've got 8 cores that are all being pushed 800MHz faster than base clocks, that's a big difference in power draw (and in turn, heat). I don't think you understand that the wattage is multiplied for every additional core you have... This is why getting a reliable overclock the the 7980XE was such a challenge: it's not that the core architecture couldn't easily reach 5GHz, the problem is you can't get all cores to reach that speed and sustain it without there being thermal and power issues. For every core you add, your maximum overclock is limited (at least realistically, in theory, there should be nothing preventing you from reaching the same clock speed as a single core CPU of the same architecture).
    If it's worth buying then why are you whining about price? If you're worried about the CPU being supported and money isn't a problem, why do you care about X470? It seems to me you're just inventing problems that don't actually affect you at all.
    Considering the amount of hype driven by enthusiasts, motherboard manufacturers, tech conferences, stock holders, and AMD's diehard fans, I would argue you're wrong about that. And of course, AMD is driving their own hype too but like I said before, nobody should be taking that seriously.
    Uh... yes it is. It's actually fantastic choice for gaming. It's not the best by any means (especially if value is important) and it isn't a platform I'd ever recommend for the sole purpose of gaming, but since you actually care about high-end non-gaming workloads, it actually makes sense for you.
    No, because the boost clocks in the first gen weren't that big of a difference, and, the clock speeds were never that high to begin with. 4.5GHz on 8 cores is a very hefty performance improvement. If you care about getting more performance for the sake of single-threaded tasks, well, you're kinda an idiot for getting a CPU with so many cores to begin with. Get an i3, shut off the security mitigations, get a liquid cooling system, and overclock it beyond 5GHz if single-threaded performance is important to you.
    Riiiiight.... Or, it's just a placebo.
    It isn't supposed to offer better performance than the ring bus. The point of IF was to make the platform modular, so you can get more performance for a lower price. Having one giant monolithic chip is good if you seek the highest performance possible, but if the silicon quality isn't just right, you have to bin the die, which could result in a massive chunk of the chip rendered useless.
    As usual, you're clearly showing your own biases. If you don't like the architecture, don't buy it.
    His point is 200MHz offers more performance than you're making it out to be.
     
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2019
    SplashDown and Ricardo like this.

  5. Aura89

    Aura89 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,616
    Likes Received:
    890
    GPU:
    -
    Guys, i don't think it's worth it to continue replying to oxidized, he has no clue what he is talking about on any topic he is talking about and he himself has even admitted to it a couple times. He's just here to argue, even if what he is arguing is completely wrong and could be seen by the most Intel-fanboy ever.

    Either he works for Intel, which it seems there's a lot of those lately, or he simply wants to argue, because he can't fathom being wrong, and will argue even when he knows he's wrong.

    It's pointless, we're talking to a wall.
     
    SplashDown and Ricardo like this.
  6. vbetts

    vbetts Don Vincenzo Staff Member

    Messages:
    14,670
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    GPU:
    RTX 2070FE
    If you also notice I brought up Bulldozer, which is still recent.

    Overclocking definitely is push a higher clock rate, but there's a huge difference between overclocking for numbers sake(something more on the competitive side where you see unrealistic overclocks and things done to obtain them the average person couldn't do), and effective overclock. Having the ability to push your cpu clocks to double does nothing if you don't have the performance to show it.

    I also referenced recent Intel cores from Ivy Bridge and newer, scaling on those for overclocking has slowed down. Again, there's no point in having a high overclock if it's not going to scale on that clocked rate. Only thing your doing is raising your heat and power draw and boasting a number.

    And also Ryzen definitely scales better than Coffee Lake. Coffee Lake can just hit higher frequencies on overclocks.
     
  7. Dazz

    Dazz Master Guru

    Messages:
    810
    Likes Received:
    77
    GPU:
    ASUS STRIX RTX 2080
    Testing motherboard compatibility and by gimping they are not giving away the optimal performance of the device. I wouldn't be surprised if the memory timings are loose as hell, i know my Ryzen 1700 be default used incredibly loose timings especially the sub timings
     
  8. oxidized

    oxidized Member Guru

    Messages:
    198
    Likes Received:
    29
    GPU:
    GTX 1060 6G
    The weak overclocking ability was shared between all SKUs, even quad core CPU wouldn't overclock, if that's what you're saying.
    You started talking about x470 not me, i already told you i'd buy a x570, so i don't really care about x470.
    I'm wrong about what? That AMD has been the economy choice for a decade now, and only now coming back to a spot that matters. Well go around asking to consumers and you'll find the answer.
    No it's not because even the fastest of those is just 4.5Ghz and and although being ok, it's not even close to fantastic, so why would i buy a processor that performs worse on gaming, performs better, but not that much, on vector graphics editors (for example) and spend much more than what a 9900K could cost, and consume much more power? And while gaming the power draw would be higher.
    2700X, ryzen+ cpu reached 4.3 with no overclocking and its boost was 600MHz. I already told you what i do with my PC, gaming and work, and i need both good
    single and multi-threaded performance.
    It's actually 14%, and yes you wish it was placebo.
    And there we go, you said it yourself their goal is to get performance for a lower price...I'm not showing any biases here, you people are, i don't care about brands, i'm not attached to any, i just buy the best my money can buy to fit my needs, and it's just not AMD round this time.
    It's still only 200MHz, and an intel part is still offering the same overclocking scaling.

    Very mature, you haven't even replied to me yet. Completely wrong in AMD fans eyes i'm sure, which is what you are, especially, at least the others had the decency of replying and arguing. I'm not wrong on anything, check your facts and then come back here arguing next time, unlike what you're doing now.

    And where's the proof of the fact ryzen scales better than coffee lake exactly? You might argue IPC is higher, but how do you prove it "scales" better than coffee lake?
     
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2019
  9. vbetts

    vbetts Don Vincenzo Staff Member

    Messages:
    14,670
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    GPU:
    RTX 2070FE
    https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i7-9700k-9th-gen-cpu,5876-5.html

    Considering stock for a 9700k is 3.6 ghz and stock for a 2700x is 3.7 ghz, the 9700 overclocked had a gain of 1500 mhz, while the 2700x had a gain of 500 mhz. Now even if you count boost clocks(which still is I believe 4.6 ghz across all cores on the 9700K), that's still a 1000 mhz boost. Both show on average 2-4 fps gains from stock to overclocked, however these gains do not take as much clocked speed on Ryzen compared to Coffee Lake.

    IPC definitely is better on Coffee Lake, can't deny that. But scaling on the other hand definitely shows more benefits on the Ryzen side. Bulldozer like Netburst introduced a super long pipeline to achieve higher clocks,which is why scaling was bad. Intel did increase the pipeline size from Kaby Lake if I remember right.

    Try increasing base clock on a Coffee Lake CPU by 200 Mhz, and try the same on Ryzen. You will notice a difference easily on Ryzen versus Coffee Lake.
     
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2019
  10. Ricardo

    Ricardo Active Member

    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    55
    GPU:
    1050Ti 4GB
    It's give or take, so in some games the Ryzen processor is (allegedly) faster than the 9900k by that much. Are you going to study each game benchmark and buy the processor based solely in this 5% difference?

    Who cares about IF and ring bus? At the end of the day I want a good processor, and if either ryzen or i9s deliver that, I'm good. Besides, IF isn't nearly as determinant this time, that's the whole point of the 14nm 'controller' inside zen 2. The latency you refer to is meaningless if it doesn't hurt performance.

    As for the memory kit, it doesn't really matter nowdays. Ryzen works with most (if not all) of them, and you only really need an average frequency like the 3200mhz I linked, not Samsung B-dies or whatever, to get good price/performance. Besides, as the article suggests, the 9900k and the 3800x are performing the same with same memory specs, so if they're running the same on 2133mhz, surely they both will perform better with higher memory frequencies.

    The article states that the 9900k tested has a boost clock of 5ghz, so it's single core scores reflects a single core of a 9900k @5ghz. I mentioned this because you're so stuck at single core performance, yet both processors achieve the same score in single threaded bench. So really, it doesn't matter for single threaded performance if the 9900k can overclock some 200mhz more, because ryzen can realistically boost another 100mhz out of the box, so again same/comparable single thread performance.

    All core overclock would be another story, ofc, but again for that you should definitely look at the ryzen 3900x.

    Where did you pulled that number from? 14% difference hasn't been mentioned by anyone. Again, the article shows EQUAL performance in single-threaded workloads. All leaks/rumors/AMD slides talk of equal/within 5% performance delta between the 9900k and ryzen 3800x.
     

  11. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,411
    Likes Received:
    1,345
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    No, it isn't. Actually pretty much all of that has nothing to do with what I was saying...
    In my first reply to you, you implied PCIe 4.0 isn't worth the additional cost to you, when compared to an Intel platform. That's fine for you to think that, but that's why I brought up X470, since you basically get the cheaper board without PCIe 4.0. How are you not following this? To spell it out for you:
    Zen2+X570+features you don't care about=roughly the same price to a 9900K platform
    Zen2+X470-features you don't care about=substantially less money than a 9900K platform
    Yes, AMD has traditionally been the economy choice. Apparently they're trying to change that. Most consumers appear to be very much on-board with the way they're heading. So, the only reason you want them to have a lower price is purely out of principle. That's not how businesses work. Products are based on supply and demand. As for whether something like the 3800X is a good value or not, well, that's determined by each individual consumer. If you don't like the value, you're free to think that, but there's plenty of others who say otherwise. So long as those people exist and keep the revenue flowing, AMD has no reason to divert their path.
    Jeez you are turning more and more into a hypocrite... So when the upcoming Ryzens might be able to achieve a 4.5GHz overclock, it's not good enough. But suddenly overclocking just isn't an option to you for X299? And for the record, you can definitely exceed 4.5GHz on the X299 platform...
    Also, since when is power consumption an issue to you? Do you really think a 9900K overclocked to 5GHz isn't going to be a major power hog? Do you really think a 9900K is going to have better power consumption than the 3800X at the same clock speeds?
    You're literally asking for the impossible...
    You want a 1GHz overclock and you somehow expect that from 8+ cores. You want a very high frequency for single-threaded tasks, but you don't want something super power consuming.
    Such a product doesn't exist and won't for a while.
    You wish it wasn't :p
    Also - if 14% is so perceptible to you, how exactly is a 200MHz overclock not good enough? If you can notice a 14% difference at a game well beyond 100FPS, you should very well be able to notice a 200MHz overclock.
    And it is a lower price, it's just not low enough for you.
    Do you realize how meaningless this comparison is? If Intel released a CPU with a 4.8GHz base clock, the probability of you getting more than 200MHz of an overclock is pretty slim. By your definition, does that make it a crappy overclocker?
    The amount you can overclock is irrelevant. What matters most is the maximum speed you can achieve. As stated before, when you've got 8+ cores, getting beyond 4.5GHz on all cores under full load is going to be a challenge no matter what you have.
     
    SplashDown likes this.
  12. Dazz

    Dazz Master Guru

    Messages:
    810
    Likes Received:
    77
    GPU:
    ASUS STRIX RTX 2080
    Thought to give this a try on my Ryzen 1700 at different memory clock speeds.

    (have to redo the others for somereason changing the memory speeds put the CPU clock speed back to default.
    2133MHz - 4233 - 24301
    3200MHz - 4790 - 28365
    3600MHz - 4911 - 28847

    so from 2133MHz to 3200MHz is 557pts difference on single and 4064pts on multi core so i guess we can expect roughly the same on the New Ryzen maybe more.

    2133MHz
    https://********/TLF8gmj/2133.png

    3200MHz CMD 1T
    https://********/PjSQQ1H/3200MHz.png
    3600MHz
    https://********/cwpx0zq/3600-MHz-CMD2-T.png
     
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2019
    Kool64 and Aura89 like this.
  13. vbetts

    vbetts Don Vincenzo Staff Member

    Messages:
    14,670
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    GPU:
    RTX 2070FE
    Also just a heads up everyone, I don't mind the conversation we're having here but we need to calm down a little bit here.
     
    SplashDown likes this.
  14. Dazz

    Dazz Master Guru

    Messages:
    810
    Likes Received:
    77
    GPU:
    ASUS STRIX RTX 2080
    Anyway factoring in the gimped DDR ram speeds i would say with 3200MHz ram it will get around 6100 on single and 38200 on multi core.
     
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2019
    Ricardo likes this.
  15. JamesSneed

    JamesSneed Master Guru

    Messages:
    583
    Likes Received:
    198
    GPU:
    GTX 1070
    The rumor mill is spinning so fast lately. Only two more weeks and we will know what is what with Ryzen 3000.
     
    patteSatan likes this.

  16. JamesSneed

    JamesSneed Master Guru

    Messages:
    583
    Likes Received:
    198
    GPU:
    GTX 1070
    You know when a site starts dabbling in tech rumors it attracts a certain crowd. Look at Anandtech for one end and wccftech for the other end of the spectrum and I think it's clear.
     
  17. Dazz

    Dazz Master Guru

    Messages:
    810
    Likes Received:
    77
    GPU:
    ASUS STRIX RTX 2080
    What can ya say people's minds go wild when new things are coming.
     
  18. MaxBlade

    MaxBlade Master Guru

    Messages:
    888
    Likes Received:
    10
    GPU:
    980Ti/970/390/+ more
    Makes you wonder if AMD did say you get the same performance with 450/470 vs 570 hmm. And if Intel does drop prices here and there around 15%

    AMD seems to be.. most the time playing catch-up. The 9900 been out since Oct 2018 be 9 months July. Were talking about a new CPU that's 10/15/20% faster cross the board? Nope. It will be tad faster here and there or slower. Its just cheaper. All this talk when the truth is, it comes down to "cheaper". We know Intel will come out with something faster.. and then we all wait again for AMD to put out something FASTER? Most likely tad faster or slower.
     
  19. TLD LARS

    TLD LARS Member Guru

    Messages:
    109
    Likes Received:
    31
    GPU:
    Vega 64
    Is this a unlimited 9900K or a Intel spec one, because that alone could be 5% speed difference.

    Calling Ryzen a bad overclocker is only correct if you buy the top of the line to begin with.
    All the non X models are nice overclockers, my 1700 runs 600MHz faster then stock and still uses less power and needs less cooling then a out of the box unlimited 9900K.
    A 600MHz overclocked 9900K needs a top of the line watercooler, to run at the same temperature.

    I am planing to buy the 3700X in a year or so, because it is the cheap 8 core, that should hit 100-200MHz lower then a max overclocked 3800X, making it the better deal.

    If you are talking about 9900K prices a 12 core 3900X could end up being within the same prize range, giving you a good multicore performance boost, with a fairly close game performance.
    Remember that the SSD speeds would be faster with Ryzen 3000 and 570, if you use PCI-X 4, plus the read and write penalty that came with meltdown and specter fix on the Intel platform.
     
  20. Dazz

    Dazz Master Guru

    Messages:
    810
    Likes Received:
    77
    GPU:
    ASUS STRIX RTX 2080
    Well AMD's budget is about 20x less than Intels, and 10x less employee's, have just got out of the black while intel is sitting on billions of $$$ in reserve. Go figures really why they are playing catch up...
     

Share This Page