AMD Announces Ryzen 7 3700X, 3800X and Ryzen 9 3900X

If it holds through independent scrutiny, absolutely, as AMD made basic architectural changes that should negatively affect IPC at the same time.

Of course, right now we're taking AMD's word for it. If they wanted us to be sure, they could have delivered a set of review units to GamersNexus in a hotel room at let Steve at 'em.

When exactly would Steve, or any reviewer, have time to benchmark during a trade show? They’d have to lock the GN team in a hotel room for days in order for them to get quality data.
 
Because it's objectively measurable and easier to grasp than IPC.

What would you suggest? Pick a few benchmarks and display the results? And when those inevitably give inconsistent data...?


I suggest that IPC isn't linear on every architecture. No full proof way to measure. Just an armchair technologist s way of thinking.
 
When exactly would Steve, or any reviewer, have time to benchmark during a trade show? They’d have to lock the GN team in a hotel room for days in order for them to get quality data.

Preliminary data? I don't see the issue. Yes, I'd want a full GN workup along with other shops, but just getting a quick independent series done to corroborate what AMD is putting out would be helpful. GN already has their benchmark suite updated for Zen 2 / Ryzen 3 and could select a handful of tests to either challenge or support AMD's marketing.

Absent that, it's prudent to consider AMD's numbers to be a bit optimistic, and add to that the potential for Intel to adjust SKUs and pricing, much of the 'takeaways' lose some of their validity.
 
Biggest issue to compatibility in either direction will be the jump to DDR5. We don't really know if it will be possible for CPUs to support both on the same hardware and more importantly with the same socket, though we do have plenty of examples of CPUs supporting different DDR generations. For a current example, many laptops with modern CPUs use LPDDR3 instead of DDR4.

Hmm haven't considered DDR5. I'm a bit behind the times with memory. I know DDR3 signals were electronically the same as DDR2, hence why the Phenom II was able to use either or given 1.5 or 1.8V and different timings. Not sure if the same story happened with DDR3 to 4. I still don't have any DDR4 hardware in fact.

I just like to upgrade once every 5 years and hate that my last build (z97 + 4790k) was at its absolute limit and had no upgrade path from day 1. I'm hoping this time around I can at least have some later CPU options like the good old days.

I have a feeling Ryzen 4000 is going to be a 3000 series refresh on the 7nm+ EUV node, but with the memory controller in question.. I just have to wait and see I guess
 
NDA. No preferential treatment. You get 'em when you get 'em.

Could have been a semi-open 'seminar' for whoever showed up. Could have required AMD response to results before publishing (either to support or refute). Could have required a set standard as GN has set for their Ryzen 3 reviews.

Lot of ways to do this- and on counter-point, I don't disagree that it would have been difficult and thus see why it might not have happened. Just would have been nice.
 
I have a feeling Ryzen 4000 is going to be a 3000 series refresh on the 7nm+ EUV node, but with the memory controller in question.. I just have to wait and see I guess

Agreed- I'm mostly highlighting the variables, from how the memory technology itself works, to the limitations of the sockets in question, to the limits of the manufacturers. As I understand, Intel hasn't supported DDR3 on their desktop SKUs since Skylake, but for example. my Coffee Lake ultrabook (8550U) does have LPDDR3.

So in theory, AMD could support Ryzen 4000 in AM4 with DDR4, and perhaps AM5 with DDR5, with the same SKUs.
 
Preliminary data? I don't see the issue. Yes, I'd want a full GN workup along with other shops, but just getting a quick independent series done to corroborate what AMD is putting out would be helpful. GN already has their benchmark suite updated for Zen 2 / Ryzen 3 and could select a handful of tests to either challenge or support AMD's marketing.

Absent that, it's prudent to consider AMD's numbers to be a bit optimistic, and add to that the potential for Intel to adjust SKUs and pricing, much of the 'takeaways' lose some of their validity.

Preliminary data wouldn't really be all that valuable either. It would be done on AMD provided hardware, with early drivers, and likely using AMD provided games/applications and it would also have to be incredibly rushed. GN also doesn't do sponsored tests like that.

Of course their numbers are optimistic. The 15% will probably show up, but maybe not across the board. Some applications might even end up higher. Barring some serious driver/platform issues early on (which are always a possibility) I'd expect the average increase to be within a few percentage points of that number.
 
I do wonder if they've improved the POST speed on these CPU/Boards.

I like my Crosshair7+2700X but the one thing that bothers me about it is that it takes too long to POST compared to all my other Intel CPUs. This is admittedly very minor, though.


I have the STRIX x470 which is basically the same board minus some vrm, and my box starts almost instantly. Less than 5 seconds from power button to W10 login screen
 
In what world is this "weak"
15% ipc improvement is massive. They are showing that they are equal to Intels single core and gaming performance finally, AND with huge multi core gains, AND cheaper, AND at less power, AND with a 12 core 24 thread part at $499, AND They all come with heatsinks that will handle these chips.

This is HUGE. AMD is now going to have the fastest mainstream desktop CPU's. This hasn't happened in a long time.
This is rumor. What was announced its weak. I see Intel style incremental improvement. At least they didn't Jack up the price. This offers me nothing. Which is fine.
 
Why doesn't everyone wait until the reviewers have the chips, publish the results and then make a decision. Jeez haters gotta hate and nothing is ever good enough.
When did intel last deliver +15% ipc for the same price on the same socket?????

Keep in mind that this is a new process from 14nm to 7nm and it does very well for AMD.
 
I, for one, wanted 5 GHz with the significant increase in IPC to finally have a jump worth talking about. What did we end up with? Yesterday's Intel level of performance with a limited benefit of more cores.


And we didn't even see reviews yet so glad you made that conclusion already. All we saw were rumors that turned out to be false, as usual. WCCFTech did a great job at making everyone think this was a wonder chip. I certainly didn't set my expectations that high.
 
WTF are you talking about? The last time Intel had a gen-to-gen increase anywhere near what AMD is claiming was in 2011.
The only world where this is good is if they magically are 15% faster per clock. So chiplets? 12 core is sweet, but no use to me. I'm sure they improved the ccx latency which was a small bottleneck as far as I can tell.

Maybe reviews will say otherwise, but this announcement by itself is weak.

I cannot believe they were able to find 15% per clock. I'm expecting 5% in real world applications, plus the 10% + click advantage over zen 1.

Sincerely hope I'm wrong, I really want a decent drop in for my Am4 systems.
 
If it holds through independent scrutiny, absolutely, as AMD made basic architectural changes that should negatively affect IPC at the same time.

Of course, right now we're taking AMD's word for it. If they wanted us to be sure, they could have delivered a set of review units to GamersNexus in a hotel room at let Steve at 'em.
They probably will be getting them soon but will have NDA's for a few weeks
This is rumor. What was announced its weak. I see Intel style incremental improvement. At least they didn't Jack up the price. This offers me nothing. Which is fine.
I don't think you know what a rumor is..
 
The only world where this is good is if they magically are 15% faster per clock. So chiplets? 12 core is sweet, but no use to me. I'm sure they improved the ccx latency which was a small bottleneck as far as I can tell.

Maybe reviews will say otherwise, but this announcement by itself is weak.

I cannot believe they were able to find 15% per clock. I'm expecting 5% in real world applications, plus the 10% + click advantage over zen 1.

Sincerely hope I'm wrong, I really want a decent drop in for my Am4 systems.

5% seems highly pessimistic. No doubt some will be under 15% (maybe even far under) but assuming real world will only be 5% seems a bit like you're overcompensating for buying into the stupid rumors.
 
I will be there to pick up your old gear. I see a Plex upgrade coming!

I might hold you to that :)

I will have a 6700K + MSI motherboard and 16GB of RAM for sale. Possibly at Noctua DH15 for sale when it comes time.
 
Maybe reviews will say otherwise, but this announcement by itself is weak.

I'll criticize either company and any other- so I'll say that 'weak' isn't really applicable. Getting within a few % of Skylake is an achievement for AMD; being able to produce CPUs with more cores economically is also an achievement. We expect that AMD is fudging the numbers one way or another, not only because this is marketing, but also because being seen as not catching up to Skylake would indeed look weak. Skylake is old.
 
here's another good question.......

will the Asus GL702ZC get a BIOS update to support Ryzen 3000? haha....


It has a 95w TDP CPU in it now, it would be hilarious if you could manage to cram the 105w 12-core into it with some better thermal paste or something.

I somehow doubt that it will get support.... but 12c/24t in a laptop would be hilarious.
 
The only world where this is good is if they magically are 15% faster per clock. So chiplets? 12 core is sweet, but no use to me. I'm sure they improved the ccx latency which was a small bottleneck as far as I can tell.

Maybe reviews will say otherwise, but this announcement by itself is weak.

I cannot believe they were able to find 15% per clock. I'm expecting 5% in real world applications, plus the 10% + click advantage over zen 1.

Sincerely hope I'm wrong, I really want a decent drop in for my Am4 systems.

It is a different process (7 nm vs 14 nm) so the 15% IPC change should not be something far fetched. Just not alone from cpu architectural changes. I think the cache helps in a way this is a "cheat" coz once you go outside of the cache you lost your advantage.
 
AMD brings 12 cores at 499 and Intel charged over 1k for 8 cores. People still bitch about price and happily pay intel an arm and a leg. Some of you reallyd deserve your wallet raped. Its like whole point of AMD to exist is make no money! Happily spend another 500 for intel. Go ahead.

15% IPC uplift and 12 core blowing the pants off intel. Are you kiddin me? Noobs want 5ghz out of box and now IPC uplift doesnt mean shit? Unreal!

AMD had 5ghz chips that didn't do shit. Now they are bringing real competition with another 15% IPC uplift and people are finding new ways to complain lol.
 
AMD brings 12 cores at 499 and Intel charged over 1k for 8 cores. People still bitch about price and happily pay intel an arm and a leg. Some of you reallyd deserve your wallet raped. Its like whole point of AMD to exist is make no money! Happily spend another 500 for intel. Go ahead.

15% IPC uplift and 12 core blowing the pants off intel. Are you kiddin me? Noobs want 5ghz out of box and now IPC uplift doesnt mean shit? Unreal!

Yeah sometimes it seems were living in the twilight zone ;)
 
I, for one, wanted 5 GHz with the significant increase in IPC to finally have a jump worth talking about. What did we end up with? Yesterday's Intel level of performance with a limited benefit of more cores.

Pay intel same money for 8 cores and same performance and more power. Problem solved. Like I said earlier some of you will never be satified lol. Stick with intel and stay happy.
 
It should only have slow post the very first post after installing memory, or you are tweaking your memory settings. If it is a problem after that, then most likely, your memory is set wrong, not considered stable during the boot process or you have some other setting in you bios set wrong.

My crosshair VII hero boots up in under 15 seconds with fast boot disabled in Windows 10.
Spinning rust and lots of drives doesn't always help either..

Pay intel same money for 8 cores and same performance and more power. Problem solved. Like I said earlier some of you will never be satified lol. Stick with intel and stay happy.
They should buy Bulldozer for muh gigahertz.
 
It is a different process (7 nm vs 14 nm) so the 15% IPC change should not be something far fetched. Just not alone from cpu architectural changes. I think the cache helps in a way this is a "cheat" coz once you go outside of the cache you lost your advantage.
Process does not improve IPC, it does allow higher clocks sometimes, which is not what was announced. I guess 4.2ghz boost on the mid-range chips is faster. But marginally.
 
I'll criticize either company and any other- so I'll say that 'weak' isn't really applicable. Getting within a few % of Skylake is an achievement for AMD; being able to produce CPUs with more cores economically is also an achievement. We expect that AMD is fudging the numbers one way or another, not only because this is marketing, but also because being seen as not catching up to Skylake would indeed look weak. Skylake is old.
I just said, weak.. Its not like I said OMFGAWEFULESAUCE.
 
(y)
I might hold you to that :)

I will have a 6700K + MSI motherboard and 16GB of RAM for sale. Possibly at Noctua DH15 for sale when it comes time.
I suggest only masturbating with one hand and keeping the noctua in the other. Kick the rest of it to the curb(y)
 
and Intel charged

They've charged >US$1000 for a single core before.

15% IPC uplift and 12 core blowing the pants off intel. Are you kiddin me? Noobs want 5ghz out of box and now IPC uplift doesnt mean shit? Unreal!

More cores than consumers can use (and yes, I do find that quite unfortunate, even frustrating), and an IPC lift that gets it in range of a half-decade old uarch while still falling short of matching clockspeeds? That's nice, but it's not 'blowing the pants off'.

AMD had 5ghz chips that didn't do shit. Now they are bringing real competition with another 15% IPC uplift and people are finding new ways to complain lol.

Not complaining about the parts, just AMD's numbers. I'll complain about Intel's too...
 
Totally derailing with self thought but I'm assuming X570 will be forward compatible with zen 2+?

I'm trying to figure out what to do for my upgrade, within a reasonable budget. Have to see the benchmark and overclock results but may start out with a 3700, unless the 3800 overclocks much better. Then maybe next year I can bump up to a 12 or 16 core zen 2+.

Not sure if it would make sense on the ole wallet to drop $499 on the 12 core now when I can drop in a better replacement in the not too distant future when I could actually use the extra cores 8)

zen 2+ most likely yes, zen 3 maybe not if it goes to ddr5.
 
They've charged >US$1000 for a single core before.



More cores than consumers can use (and yes, I do find that quite unfortunate, even frustrating), and an IPC lift that gets it in range of a half-decade old uarch while still falling short of matching clockspeeds? That's nice, but it's not 'blowing the pants off'.



Not complaining about the parts, just AMD's numbers. I'll complain about Intel's too...

I get your point. What do you expect Lisa to do? She has deliver 60%+ IPC increase in last 3 years compared to their old chips. To expect anything else it is pretty obsurd. its like damned if you do and damned if you don't. Unlike intel sitting on its ass they brought another 15% in 2 years compared to first gen ryzen.

Like I said everyone wanted them to match intel now they do and it's still not good enough. let's see how the overclock on these chips looks. They are staying within TDP for now on these based on numbers, I would like to see how they can be pushed. Afterall it makes sense for them to stay within previous TDPs for better backward compatibility.
So are we really complaining about more cores for consumers now? Now that more and more people have more cores that they are mainstream you will see software catch up too.
 
I get your point. What do you expect Lisa to do? She has deliver 60%+ IPC increase in last 3 years compared to their old chips. To expect anything else it is pretty obsurd. its like damned if you do and damned if you don't. Unlike intel sitting on its ass they brought another 15% in 2 years compared to first gen ryzen.

Like I said everyone wanted them to match intel now they do and it's still not good enough. let's see how the overclock on these chips looks. They are staying within TDP for now on these based on numbers, I would like to see how they can be pushed. Afterall it makes sense for them to stay within previous TDPs for better backward compatibility.
So are we really complaining about more cores for consumers now? Now that more and more people have more cores that they are mainstream you will see software catch up too.

Honestly, im still using an FX system beside the Ryzen 5 1600, and it does everything practically the same. There is no functional difference from day to day use. I expect less heat, but I dont notice that.
 
It should only have slow post the very first post after installing memory, or you are tweaking your memory settings. If it is a problem after that, then most likely, your memory is set wrong, not considered stable during the boot process or you have some other setting in you bios set wrong.

My crosshair VII hero boots up in under 15 seconds with fast boot disabled in Windows 10.

From Black screen to the Asus ROG logo is taking a while and I'm guessing one of two causes:
1. The system is just having trouble initializing all of my 64GB RAM. (Even at stock 2133, there is no reduction in time)
2. Win10 wasn't installed in UEFI mode.

Since from Asus logo to Windows is quite fast, I'm guessing it's #1.
 
I get your point. What do you expect Lisa to do? She has deliver 60%+ IPC increase in last 3 years compared to their old chips. To expect anything else it is pretty obsurd. its like damned if you do and damned if you don't. Unlike intel sitting on its ass they brought another 15% in 2 years compared to first gen ryzen.

The CEO? Honestly I feel she's done a pretty outstanding job, as far as anyone can tell from the outside. From a marketing perspective, AMD has to put some spin on stuff, cause it's going to be spun by the press afterward anyway. And dissected by us :D.

Like I said everyone wanted them to match intel now they do and it's still not good enough

Given AMD's numbers they really haven't. Close enough for most, though.

let's see how the overclock on these chips looks.

Likely not that impressive. If there was more headroom on average, AMD would have pushed the clockspeeds a bit more. Perhaps there's more variability in this generation above the official bins, but for that to be left on the table it's not going to be common.

They are staying within TDP for now on these based on numbers, I would like to see how they can be pushed. Afterall it makes sense for them to stay within previous TDPs for better backward compatibility.

To a degree- in terms of power draw, it's still the wild west for compatible boards. In terms of cooling, I'd expect AMD to continue shipping respectable OEM coolers, and for the enthusiast-oriented stuff, I don't expect them to be 'out of range' of a decent AIO.

Software doesn't push cores, hardware does. So are we really complaining about more cores for consumers now? Now that more and more people have more cores that they are mainstream you will see software catch up too.

Basic challenge is that you either have embarrassingly parallel stuff like various forms of rendering (3D, video), or using more cores is like a decade long root canal operation. Games fall into the latter group and that's about the most intensive use that most consumers have.

At this point six cores can handle just about anything a consumer does responsively. Two if they're not gaming. Four's a decent compromise for those that want 'enough', eight if they're gaming.


I do want to state that I'm not trying to be pessimistic about AMD's accomplishment as it stands, and when the cards play out I might be far more supportive- or not- depending on all the variables.
 
1. The system is just having trouble initializing all of my 64GB RAM. (Even at stock 2133, there is no reduction in time)

Scan that RAM, one stick at a time, then in pairs, then all at once. 64GB would mean that you're filling all slots, so four banks per channel (two banks per module, two modules per channel), and that's rough regardless of platform. Good luck!
 
I get your point. What do you expect Lisa to do? She has deliver 60%+ IPC increase in last 3 years compared to their old chips. To expect anything else it is pretty obsurd. its like damned if you do and damned if you don't. Unlike intel sitting on its ass they brought another 15% in 2 years compared to first gen ryzen.

Like I said everyone wanted them to match intel now they do and it's still not good enough. let's see how the overclock on these chips looks. They are staying within TDP for now on these based on numbers, I would like to see how they can be pushed. Afterall it makes sense for them to stay within previous TDPs for better backward compatibility.
So are we really complaining about more cores for consumers now? Now that more and more people have more cores that they are mainstream you will see software catch up too.

AMD was only able to match intel single core performance due all the security mitigations intel have suffered lately.. if we consider that intel have actually lost about 15 ~ 20% of performance on a fully patched up to date machine and also considering the ryzen 1XXX and 2XXX mitigations to security holes (which nobody seems to think they exist that also decrease peformance... or avoid to mention, of course in the AMD fanboy department) then the advances of ryzen series 3000 suddenly doesn't seem to be so great..

What I truly love of ryzen cpu is how well they are able to manage and stay into TDP ratings unlike latest intel CPUS.. I have one 1700X and one 1800X and probably I'm gona upgrade those to 3800X and 3900X respectively due same reason.. thermals are always a concern to me and lately ryzen are easier to manage thermals and noise.
 
Back
Top