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. oxidized

    oxidized Member Guru

    Messages:
    198
    Likes Received:
    29
    GPU:
    GTX 1060 6G
    Sorry what exactly do those tests you linked prove? Because reading them don't really tell me anything useful, and don't really prove that 200MHz on ryzen scale better than 200MHz on coffee lake, all i see is different values for each game, for GTA V it might be accurate what you say, but not for hitman, where for example the 8700K gains 7 fps, stock vs overclocked, or the 9700 or on Civilization VI where the 8700K gains almost 10 fps vs the stock version and again the 9700K gains almost 6 fps vs the stock , while the 2700X gains 5fps. These say nothing at all, and they're very dependant on the game engine, so they're not at all a proof of any kind. Also ryzen IPC is higher not coffee lake, since it perform not that differently with a much lower clock...

    If single threaded performance is higher, you'll find almost no game behaving better on ryzen, and that's true until now, just go check any benchmark between similar processors, the one with higher single threaded performance will perform better in most of the game, not give or take.
    It did in the past, why are you expecting it to change suddenly? It's the same architecture, a few improvements won't change something so rooted, pretty much like intel won't solve their problems just improving 14nm and creating "new generations" of cpu with the same architecture and lithography
    It does matter still, maybe not like it did in the beginning, but it won't digest anything below 2933MHz fine, and performance will be affected, i'm sure they're working on that as ryzen 2000 to 1000 already saw decent improvements.
    9900K reaches automatically 5GHz via its boost, so it's not really an overclock, because it doesn't need me to act on anything inside the bios. I see a 14% advantage for the 9900K actually, which is also stated in the article.
    Yes, for some reason i totally ignored that because i thought that 12 cores were too much for me, but if it performs good in games too (hence single threaded perf), possibly better than the 3800X (which is possible due to the higher frequency), then i might jump on that.
    Again, look at the article, and both the images.

    No i said that pcie 4.0 is useless, but not for me, for everyone for the time being, but it's not like the new x570 only has pcie 4.0 as a new feature, and i said i would definitely buy a x570 as a motherboard in the case of a ryzen 3000 build. If the features we're talking about are better VRM and similar stuff, i'm VERY interested in those, that's why i was justifying my choice for a x570.
    And i'm happy about that, because if they make worthy products they have all the rights to charge for that, and customers will be more than happy to. I don't upgrade or build new systems frequently nowadays, but when i do i have to get something that convinces me 100%, hence i'm still running a 2600K and it's been almost 8 years
    Why would i want that if there's already a better CPU for gaming wich no need of overclocking (not that i wouldn't overclock it), do you think any of those x299 CPUs would reach 5GHz handily? I'm not sure about that, and since they already consume more than a z390, imagine with such big overclock...Oh i do know very well how much of a power hog is a 9900K don't worry, but still that's capable of giving top single AND multi-threaded performance. Do you think i came here because i needed some suggestions for buying stuff? I don't like the 9900K in fact i wouldn't buy it if there was something better, but if the choice was to be only between that and the 3800X i'd buy the first.
    I don't want anything, i'm not asking anything, i'd just like nobody was a fan and everyone was honest with themselves and with the others, that's all i'd like to see. The rest i don't really care.
    14% is a lot, how 200MHz relate to that i don't understand...What do you think 200MHz going to give you exactly? On some game they can give you 3 fps more, on an average of 90, on some other 5 fps, on something else even more, but that's based on games, and how they work, on some game you might not even see any difference, 14% consistent more performance in single threaded applications is something you'll find everywhere, and notice everywhere, especially in videogames, ofc the results will change based on the game, but 14% more single threaded performance in general you have, not a couple of fps more just because maybe the game is capable of stressing more than 4 cores.
    Yeah right i'm a poor homeless guy.
    It is a crappy overclocker, no doubt, will it be fast nonetheless, ofc, but it still remains a crappy overclocker, because intel brought up the frequency and sold it to me like it was a great achievement from their part, when in fact i could've done the same, and be happier with the result while having the same performance and a less excuse for them to increase the pricing.
     
  2. ToxicTaZ

    ToxicTaZ Member

    Messages:
    37
    Likes Received:
    2
    GPU:
    Nvidia
    This article is about AMD best 8 cores 3800X vs Intel 9 months old second best 8 cores 9900K.

    Everyone forget about that Intel is releasing the 9900KS and a 15%+ price drop this July ?

    9900KS is a highly binned high yielding Cherry Picked CPU that's cheaper than the Siliconlottery.com for money wise .

    9900KS will OC 200MHz over the 9900K top 5.1GHz.

    Thinkin about dropping in the 9900KS and OCing it to 5.3GHz All Cores AVX-0 and calling it a day. benchmark Haven

    9900KS is the last CPU upgrade for all 300 series boards .

    Intel 400 series will use a new socket again ... Losing backwards compatibles as always ... So no 10 cores for us 300 series boards ..

    I really want to see 3800X vs 9900KS .... Top 8 cores CPUs Stock vs stock

    3800X will be cheaper and use less power and heat .. Overall way more efficient with 7nm.

    9900KS will be expensive and my guess runs 4GHz 95w base to 5GHz 195w Turbo ... Which is the maximum 200w cooling power of most cheaper pre-filled 240mm RADs..... After that a good OC would need EK or Swiftech or equivalent cooling for sure ..
     
  3. Aura89

    Aura89 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,626
    Likes Received:
    897
    GPU:
    -
    No one knows what the 9900KS will be priced at.
     
  4. Arbie

    Arbie Member Guru

    Messages:
    169
    Likes Received:
    58
    GPU:
    GTX 1060 6GB
    Why all the argument? The 8-core choice is pretty clear:

    • Ryzen 3800, or

    • A chip that will cost at least 50% more, will likely take 50% more power, has weaker and more susceptible mult-threading, has less sophisticated and efficient auto-OC, does not support PCIe4, has worse generational compatibility, does not include a decent cooler, is obsolete technology, and is from a company that milked us for 10+ years and did everything it could both legally and illegally to crush its only competition so it could milk us forever - and that is only offering an affordable 8-core because it was finally forced to do so!

    Granted, that's a difficult decision, but the facts aren't in question.
     
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2019

  5. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,421
    Likes Received:
    1,349
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    But... you're not justifying the choice. The whole reason we're having this discussion is because you're questioning if you should be going for a 9900K for a similar price point. Or at least, you made it seem that way.
    If you were happy about it then you wouldn't have ever brought up pricing. If you were happy about it you wouldn't have made the comment (to quote you exactly) "... 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."
    That shows you either aren't as ok with the situation as you claim to be, or, you don't understand what the market wants.
    You JUST said you would overclock, so, what difference does it make if there's a need to? And yes, there are several Skylake-X CPUs that can reach 5GHz handily. Plenty of people managed 5GHz on the 7900X for example. That has 2 additional cores over the 9900K. In addition to the great overclocking potential, you also get double the memory channels and more PCIe lanes.
    Based on what evidence? Nobody knows what the 3800X is truly capable of and these geekbench results aren't much to go by. It could be a disappointment, but it isn't so assuredly inferior as you suggest it to be.
    I still don't understand why you want it, considering the 9900K apparently has everything you care about, and, since you can afford it.
    Most of us are being honest. I for example have mostly been telling you "buy Intel, it suits you better" or "here's a better Intel platform" or "don't trust AMD's claims". Despite those things, as you're probably aware, I'm not an Intel shill. Don't call us dishonest when you're making claims without sufficient evidence.
    It's 2019, we're not in the dual-core days anymore... 200MHz on all cores makes a very substantial performance difference in certain applications. If hitting some arbitrary large frequency like 5GHz is all you care about for some old game such as CS:GO, then again, get the 9900K. You aren't going to regret it.
    You're the one who isn't satisfied. Note how nobody else is complaining.
    And so what if it is a crappy overclocker? If there's a cheaper model you can overclock to the same speed, great, don't buy the more expensive one. You admitted it's still fast so it's not like you're getting a bad product either way.
     
    Aura89 likes this.
  6. oxidized

    oxidized Member Guru

    Messages:
    198
    Likes Received:
    29
    GPU:
    GTX 1060 6G
    Yeah, and i already told you i would go for the 9900K if i had to choose between that and the 3800X for all the reasons i explained above which justify my point of view. You're free to think that those 73€ don't justify the performance increase but that's your choice, it's not like you're doing what's right and i'm doing something wrong.
    This has nothing to do with the fact that AMD is taking its spot back, at least for now they've been the economic solution, and there's no arguing there, even with this series they're probably going to be the economic solution, but they grew exponentially since the last time, and the path is right.
    Which are still not performing like coffee lake or kaby lake in gaming even at those frequencies, but the thing you seem to ignore is that x299 is much more expensive overall, and wouldn't really give me any benefits (waste of money), while a 9900K is probably as expensive as building a x570 build
    Based on the evidence given in this article, all bets are off, those CPUs are about to launch, and there's no way those are fake, those CPUs are ready to launch, and someone put their hands on a few samples and ran the geekbench, which might not be a good indicator of performance, but it's still a comparison, and the 9900K is doing definitely better in one of the 2 things interested. Again i don't like particularly the 9900K i'm just pointing out why the 3800X isn't that clear choice you all talk about.
    That's pretty sufficient evidence actually, and more will come within days, just look at how different they'll be from this. And then let's talk again. I know very well you're no intel shill, nor AMD one, but you seem to tend liking more AMD than intel, free to do ofc, but still your words are biased even if just a bit.
    Talking like nowadays games use perfectly all cores and you can gain performance switching to a CPU with more cores...Most of the games, even latest one, still like high frequency more than number of cores, and it'll remain so for a decent amount of time. Anyway 200MHz are still something you have to get manually, and it's not 100% certain you'll be able to do so, while those comparison are made at stock clocks, with only Turbo function on both, and that's the difference you have out of the box, from then you can only go higher, but one is starting with a pretty considerable amount of advantage already.
    Nobody else HERE is complaining, actually somebody here is complaining, just fewer, but what i'm complaining isn't the price itself, it's the price compared to old intel products that seem to perform better in some workloads, which happen to be what i'm most interested in.
    Have i ever said that crappy overclockers are bad products? Don't think so, it's just not true, that's why i said crappy overclocker not crappy product.
     
  7. Alienwarez567

    Alienwarez567 Active Member

    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    10
    GPU:
    Gigabyte GTX 1080 G1
    All i can say is that it looks like AMD will be getting my money this time the 3900 looks like a good bargain for me compared to the 9900 in general i think Intel have been a little to pricey just like Nvidia because of the lack of competition.
     
  8. Ryrynz

    Ryrynz Active Member

    Messages:
    77
    Likes Received:
    1
    GPU:
    GTX 960
    Looks like somehow 9900K owners or wanna be owners somehow though a 15% IPC increase meant AMD was gonna beat the IPC of Intel's best..
    LOL. They're still catching up performance wise, but design wise... this strategy should pay off as cores rocket up sky high. All ya'll getting 12-16 core processors
    have AMD to thank.. Some of you need to screw your heads on.
     
  9. TheDeeGee

    TheDeeGee Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    6,135
    Likes Received:
    611
    GPU:
    MSI GTX 1070
    AMD Ryzen 7 3800X
    MSI X470 Gaming Pro
    Crucial Ballistix Sport LT 2x16 GB 3200 MHz

    That's what my upgrade list looks like, and would cost me about €650.

    Hopefully i can sell my 4770K + Mobo + Ram for about €225.
     
    jura11 and Ricardo like this.
  10. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,421
    Likes Received:
    1,349
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    Ah my bad - I misread what you wrote about having to choose between the 2 and thought you said you preferred the 9900K. Though even then... you also said you could justify the price of a X570 system, so, you're still being very inconsistent.
    Note how I've been saying 73€ price difference wasn't a problem to me. I in general haven't said anything about my personal preferences of price.
    It has nothing but to do with AMD taking its spot back... The prices are higher because of S&D (and maybe a little bit of a "prestige tax"), and that is directly correlated to AMD's position against Intel.
    Based on what evidence? They're basically the same architecture on the same transistor size... Meanwhile, the X299 CPUs have the benefit of more memory channels, which in some cases improves upon any minute improvements over Coffee/Kaby Lake.
    You kept saying before price doesn't matter. If that's true, then you can afford X299. If price does matter to you, I think the 73€ you brought up earlier is a decent chunk of change to save.
    I take it you must not have looked into PC hardware for very long because nobody in their right mind would say what you said just because of a couple of unofficial geekbench results. You already admitted it might not be a good indicator, and yet, "all bets are off"?
    You care about people being honest and unbiased, but that's about as dishonest and biased of a reason you can get for what's going on in this situation.
    No, it literally isn't sufficient. It isn't to be dismissed but it isn't the holy grail of results. If you are aware how different the upcoming results will be, how can you say the geekbench results are sufficient?
    I agree, but seeing as a 200MHz difference isn't enough of a difference to you in gaming results, is it really that much worse if you're 300MHz behind (using my example earlier of achieving a 4.7GHz overclock)?
    You said you do more than gaming, which is exactly why you're looking for a many-core CPU in the first place. I assure you, your other workloads will reap the benefits of a mild all-core overclock.
    Fair enough.
    Uh... within 1 sentence you contradicted yourself...
    You didn't say that, but you used it as a reason to gripe about the product.
     

  11. Ricardo

    Ricardo Active Member

    Messages:
    84
    Likes Received:
    55
    GPU:
    1050Ti 4GB
    I know that single thread performance makes games run faster. That's exactly the point: all benches show that the 3800x have equal/comparable single threaded performance to the 9900k. What part of that sentence isn't clear yet?

    Ryzen 3000 uses zen 2 cores, which are fundamentally different from zen (ryzen 1000) and zen + (ryzen 2000). So right there you already can't use the older ryzens to make any comparison, unless you take the 2000's performance and add a raw 15% IPC performance to them, which is what AMD claims to have achieved.

    And the memory speed gimping the processor is true to Intel as well - the sweet spot for price/performance is between 3000mhz and 3466mhz, anything below cripples these processors, and above that the gains are exponentially not as good/worth it.

    You seem to have misread the pictures in the article, here's a summary:

    First bench:
    Intel 9900k @5ghz (turbo) with 2133mhz RAM = single core: 5465, multi core: 25311
    Ryzen 3800x @4.5ghz (turbo) with 2133mhz RAM = single core: 5406, multi core: 34059
    3800x equals 9900k in single, beats it in multi by a significant margin
    [​IMG]

    Second bench:
    Intel 9900k @5ghz (turbo) with better 2666mhz RAM = single core: 6189, multi core: 34249
    Ryzen 3800x @4.5ghz (turbo) with worse 2133mhz RAM = single core: 5406, multi core: 34059
    With better RAM, the 9900k wins in single, but only equals in multi compared to the 3800x.
    [​IMG]

    And those numbers are, allegedly, on a X470 board, so there's that - no need to buy a X570 to get good performance.

    Can we move on now?
     
  12. Aura89

    Aura89 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,626
    Likes Received:
    897
    GPU:
    -
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2019
  13. oxidized

    oxidized Member Guru

    Messages:
    198
    Likes Received:
    29
    GPU:
    GTX 1060 6G
    No i said that if i had to buy a ryzen 3000 CPU, i would surely buy a x570 as a motheboard, for the reasons i already pointed out, so that's what i'm comparing to a 9900K build when i talk about price, i never said i could justify the price of a x570 system...
    Oh it does, because they started making good products again, that's why they're taking their spot back.#
    Based on gaming benchmarks, and based on how much money it costs more instead of a mainstream platform, to have worse or at best the same results. Price doesn't matter when we're talking about that amount, if price didn't matter in general i would buy both, and something else too just to try them. I could afford a x299 system, but as i already said, it would be pointless, because it wouldn't give me the same amount of gaming performance a 9900K could, and i would have to spend much, much more than 73€ more to build it.
    As i said, they're not official, but they're probably true, those CPU are available to someone, that someone benched them and posted the results on the internet, it's not a good indicator for gaming performance, true, but single threaded performance difference between the 2 CPUs are showing.
    Nothing is the holy grail of results, but this are very possibile, in fact official results will give that result. And let's put it this way, in case i'm wrong when they launch, i'll come here and say i was wrong and you were right, how's that?
    You don't get what i mean, maybe it's just me not expressing myself correctly, i understand my english is far from perfect but still. I never said i don't want to overclock my CPUs, in fact if you read some post back, i clearly said i'd overclock my CPU whatever it is, but it would just to squeeze the highest performance possible out of it, it would be better to have a CPU with an already high single threaded score. Also i said i need both, i play videogames, and work, so the best thing for me would be at least 8/16 with the highest possible single threaded score (and frequency)
    Oh come on, really? That's no contraddiction...Please.
    Listen i've been suggesting ryzen configs to all people i know who needed to build a new computer in the latest ~2ish years, i only suggested a 9600K recently because they guy planned to play in 1080p for another 3/4 years at the best his money could buy, so...

    So what did i misread exaclty? That intel scores much better with a low end kit of memories? And equally with shi**y memories? Also a guy i know who has recently bought a 9900K told me he could score better than 6189 with 3200MHz memories, and a slight overclock, 5,1GHz if i'm not mistaken.
    That doesn't depend on me.
     
  14. abula

    abula Master Guru

    Messages:
    821
    Likes Received:
    10
    GPU:
    Asus GTX1080Ti
    What would all say if intel lowered the i9 9900k to $400, would you still think the 3800x is a better buy?
     
  15. oxidized

    oxidized Member Guru

    Messages:
    198
    Likes Received:
    29
    GPU:
    GTX 1060 6G
    Probably because it would still be 1$ cheaper.
     

  16. TheDeeGee

    TheDeeGee Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    6,135
    Likes Received:
    611
    GPU:
    MSI GTX 1070
    I'm just done with Intel after what they done and are going to do with my 4770K.
     
    Ricardo and carnivore like this.
  17. Fox2232

    Fox2232 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,737
    Likes Received:
    2,198
    GPU:
    5700XT+AW@240Hz
    I would say to wait for actual 3800X benchmarks.

    And if they performed in similar fashion I would advise people to reward AMD for innovation and pushing cores while intel would give you maybe 6C/12T by now if Zen did not came.
    That's if people want AMD to continue with innovation.
     
    Jagman, Ricardo, fredgml7 and 2 others like this.
  18. Aura89

    Aura89 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,626
    Likes Received:
    897
    GPU:
    -
    Considering i'd have an upgrade path to 16 cores if i so chose down the line without the need of an entirely new system, if the 9900k and 3800x perform roughly the same, yes, i'd say go for the 3800x.

    Sure, down the road there could be better options, but that's the key word: could be.

    Having the option of buying simply a higher core count CPU and nothing else, or going with whatever new has appeared if i have the money for it or if it's worth it, is more options then simply being forced to have to fork over money for a new motherboard and ram as well as a CPU.
     
    airbud7 and Jagman like this.
  19. abula

    abula Master Guru

    Messages:
    821
    Likes Received:
    10
    GPU:
    Asus GTX1080Ti
    Thanks for your replies and opinions, i think they are valid and to me if intel lowered it to $400, could go either way, like it seems fair at the that price range but AMD has, as Aura89 posted, a better upgrade path if the needs arises.

    I do think intel is going to bounce back, probably not this year, and not sure about the next one, but Intel, for years milk us and totally dominated the market, they have to resources to do it, and we have seen it in the past, weather it happen or not is something that has to be seen, but i do think they will, and hope they do, as AMD also has practices like intel, you can see it on the 5700XT pricing, once allowed these companies will try to net the highest they can, neither company cares about us, nor they should, they are here to do one thing, and its to make money to their share holders, so to keep the market in line, hope their offerings continue from both companies.
     
  20. ToxicTaZ

    ToxicTaZ Member

    Messages:
    37
    Likes Received:
    2
    GPU:
    Nvidia
    I want to see how bad the 3800X gaming performance is against the 9900KS ..

    9900KS should be great for non OCing and OC guys.

    9900KS 4GHz base can OC to 5.3GHz AVX-0 all cores (1300MHz OC) maximum potential. After market cooling guys like me (with EK or Swiftech or equivalent cooling )

    But this thread is about stock 9900K (3.6GHz) vs the 3800X

    At the end of the day it starts with the base stock speeds and everything else is just OC

    9900KS is going to be rock solid 8 cores performance for this year ... ((At least Intel gets to keep the fastest 8 cores PC Gaming crown CPU on Earth for 2019.)

    But getting blown away by 3900X/3950X but that's a hole another core story ..

    We'll have to see how Intel 10 cores CPU stack up against the 3900X and 3950X Q4 2019 ..

    It's awesome that the price point of the 9 months old 9900K should be the same as 3800X but with slightly more performance ...

    Bravo AMD for getting Intel 9 years old architecture 8 cores performance finally and with less power. Long live the 3800X
     

Share This Page