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

Reading TH site for review makes me want to puke as they are biased peasants. Also, beware of that "kinggremlin" member at their forums as I think him and "jwb1" are one and the same - and same unwise argument they're spreading XD

 

As popular as the 3700x was, why didn't AMD make more of them.

 

I'm sure they are making them as fast as possible. It's not like the 3700x in the only process utilizing TSMCs 7nm technology. Even though cryptocurrency is not as huge as it once was, even they are using TSMC for 7nm. Among other things as well, ofcourse.

 

Would've been nice to see cpu bound tests in older games where playing at higher framerates for high refresh rate monitors.

Example I played Killing Floor for a bit the other day for the first time since I upgraded from the 950 and the game still can't seem to maintain 120fps without sustained drops, even on a 2600x which was kind of disappointing.

I don't know if newer Intel CPUs have any issues with this though either.

It looks good though. I will wait for a 3600x review. I have been thinking of updating to that based how reviews were. Thanks for the bc AMD.

 

I'll wait a bit too. the 3700x looks a great CPU but being a gamer, it's still a bit of a hit and miss. Still, overall, it's an amazing CPU for the money. I'll wait for a few more motherboards to come out and a few bios updates before I decide whether I'll be switching. Honestly, my 7700k runs my games amazingly well so I don't feel like I need to upgrade right now.

God, for all I know, I'll procrastinate and end up waiting for the next gen and to see what Intel come up with.

 

One thing that I was curious was the performance of the included box cooler - and from what I saw in other reviews you should invest in a third party solution (for 3900X at least):

 

I bought the 3700x since I did not find enough compelling performance diff that would translate to real world everyday noticeable experiences. Performance + costs did it for me.Maybe if Intel could had lead by a mean of 20% across the board I might had given more weight to Intel but they just did not dominate and got crushed on the price side.

 

Killing Floor 1 was doing fine at some point in time. Then some update and boom. +All the new maps with lots of objects and animations of world objects. UE in state they put it in hates it so much. Those maps have no hard time stuttering even while having decent fps.

Killing Floor 2 on other hand is doing great in terms of achievable fps and frame pacing while looking much better. If only difficulty scaling in 2nd could be bit better. (Not that difficulty in 1st is any better. It is just broken in very different way.)

 

Next year, Zen 2+ will have a slight increase in IPC and drop in memory latency.

In 2021, we'll see Zen 3, which will likely be a game changer. Rumors are floating around about stacked IO/memory and 3 or 4 threads per core.

AMD is killing it!

 

I think its crazy not to factor in one major thing... what the future has coming for multi-core processors (next gen gaming)... If we do dare talk about this aspect...then these Ryzen CPUs are by far, the better buy. Look at next gen console gaming for example...those upcoming next gen consoles will be sporting the same Ryzen CPUs.... with the 8 cores and 16 threads... isn't that a MAJOR THING TO MENTION????? Multi Core Gaming is finally gonna go to the next level in about a year from now once those consoles release and if you got the exact same 8 core proc... over say a 4 core or even a 6 core proc from Intel... which is the better buy? Heck.. EVERYTHING is finally going to the next level for consumers when we talk about PC Multi Core Procs with Operation systems (Windows 10) and just about all apps but gaming is the huge factor here as most here game or most buying this type of hardware is a gamer.

I don't understand why this is not a big "Talking Point" in this review. Its one of the biggest factors in going with a multi core proc..considering 99% of next gen PC games will be coming from the next gen Console Space that just happens to have AMD Ryzen 8 Core Procs and Navi GPUs... how is this not a big factor in this Ryzen Review? Someone slap me!! Please!!

 

That certainly is counter intuitive. I'm thinking of getting one of these. Can you let me know the board model and post a screenshot of this page (include the accompanying help text, usually automatically displayed at the side) to allow me to make a few enquiries before purchase. It's reasonable to expect that new boards for a new CPU might, on occasion, need some manufacturer updates.

 

GFX card aside, it is and has been a talking point ever since we moved away from single core CPU's - a talking point that has been increasing in loudness especially since AMD ramped up core counts in previous releases. Unfortunately, we need quite a bit more buyer saturation. Developers are much slower to respond and yes, consoles are a very significant driver. As you note, the next consoles are getting core increases, thanks due to AMD, but they're not due to be released for some time thus, another reason for developers to take their time (this is no simple task).
Maximising core counts for gaming will come. We're already getting there for some non-gaming situations.

 

Again, not the best choice for high refresh rate gaming, but significantly better than AMD's predecessor! For instance on Battlefield 5 it was 184 fps for 9900K vs 160fps for 3700X & 3900X, which is a big difference, but only if you're running 180Hz plus. For the other games that were tested, quite a few showed that 3700X & 3900X were not suitable for 144Hz even, but who needs to play Shadow of the Tomb Raider at 144Hz, you only need 144Hz+ for competitive online fps gaming. If you've got a high refresh rate monitor then depending on what games you play it's possible 3700X/3900X would be ok for them, but it's not ideal, and for future games there's no guarantee that they're gonna be any better - the safe bet for an expensive 144Hz+ gaming build would be 9900K.

Interesting to see that these Ryzen CPUs still don't overclock well, and that it still makes more sense to leave them at default to let the auto boosting features of the cores hit higher frequencies in lighter loads than you would otherwise be able to achieve with a manual all core overclock. Actually, if you were to compare overclocked Intel CPUs to these Ryzen CPUs then the gaming performance gulf would be even larger - and that's actually a very valid point because Intel CPUs overclock really easily, and gamers often overclock their CPUs - Intel CPUs therefore a no brainer for high refresh rate gaming when you think about it from this angle now.

 

Any upcoming 3800X review? The 3700X and 3900X look amazing, but I feel like the 3800X might take the cake in terms of gaming FPS in comparison to the 3900X with the slightly higher base clock.

Although admittedly it is somewhat uninteresting when you can get 4 extra cores and almost double the “gamecache” for $100 extra.

 

Call it a tie in IPC.

Intel just lost the workstation and server market.
They kept gaming thanks to a well developed process that gives them high clocks. Outside of the 9900k they have nothing.

The hype is very real but maybe not so much for the demographic of this forum.
Performance per watt, this is amazing compared to the competition.

Intel, your turn.

 

Hmm...here we go again, the FPS and OC obsessed.
Unfortunately, you make a glaring assumption, that most folk use our PC's exclusively for gaming.
Can you tell us, in a little depth, about how well Zen2 handles it's auto boost feature? Can I also ask you, how does Zen2 compare when Hilbert talks about productivity testing? - you'll have seen those results too! It's ok, I don't expect you to reply, if at all, to any meaningful depth on that.

 

I’m so glad to see AMD back fighting at the top again. So as a conclusion you can now basically pick what ever suits your pocket and be done with it. My next system will definitely be a Ryzen build.

 

Woweeeeeeeeeeee! Cheers Hilbert, just turned my computer on, monday morning and see 2 lots of reviews that i have been waiting for , the Amd, cpu &gpu . Just read the cpu, now onto the gpu

Amd have come up trumps on the cpu dept as far as i'm concerned. Nothing to do with Donald, no political bashing here

 

Yeah, it's ok, for high refresh rate gaming, overclocked Intel CPUs are obviously gonna be the best choice. For certain productivity/creation tasks then these latest AMD CPUs kick ass for value and also performance, and of course they're perfect for normal sub 100Hz gaming. There's not really any more depth needed. I'm personally interested in high refresh rate gaming, because that's the way I use my PC the most, so that's why I talked only about that aspect in my last post.

 

I've watched reviews all day and my conclusion is the same as yours. The 9700K is, simply by higher boost clocks out of the box (~4700MHz), the best CPU for gaming. If the 3800X would have the same boost clocks it would be better than the 9700K just as well as the 3900X would beat the 9900K at the same clock speeds. But since the 3700X and 3900X don't manage anything above 4200MHz with PBO, that's where it falls short. And like you mention - if one only wants to game, then clock speeds matter.

I'm personally torn between the 9700K and the 3800X but I'm quite willing to give the 3800X a chance just by hoping that it will surpass both 3700X and 3900X in gaming applications and hopefully better boost clocks. OCing these guys proved not to help at all and just makes the CPU hot as hell.

Regarding X570 boards that little fan (that nobody is talking about) is the tipping point. One Guru did scan the web for videos here and there and there was one where you could constantly hear the fan, super annoying. From what I've gathered the 3000-series OC just as well on a X470 mobo than a X570 mobo.