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

I just appreciate how much life you get out of current AMD builds. I'll be able to drop in a 3900x in my X470 board and have PCI-E 4.0 support on the top slot, and double my core count, and the CPU itself isn't even all that expensive compared to Intel.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
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!
Click to expand...

All have passed memtest, and I don't have any problems. That said, the machine is mighty fast.

It's running ESXi smoother than the Dual Xeon Silvers I have at work. That said, I don't have as many VMs running on it concurrently.

The 'delay' in POST is just less than 30 seconds (have not really timed it). Still different compared to my older Intels wherein the motherboard logo would show up almost instantaneously.
 
My take is that the 12 core is being released now as the top dog because most x470 boards will handle it with ease. Perhaps the 16 core is just going to pull too much power or they need to bin more chips to make them in any volume. Maybe they will require a x570 chipset to run. Maybe they will have a special variant of the x570 chipset to make them more like a threadripper with a price closer to a threadripper. Also, like someone else said, it would be nice to have something in reserve to challenge whatever Intel may throw out there.
 
mda said:
All have passed memtest, and I don't have any problems. That said, the machine is mighty fast.

It's running ESXi smoother than the Dual Xeon Silvers I have at work. That said, I don't have as many VMs running on it concurrently.

The 'delay' in POST is just less than 30 seconds (have not really timed it). Still different compared to my older Intels wherein the motherboard logo would show up almost instantaneously.
Click to expand...

Are you running the latest microcode/BIOS update? I know that the latest microcode that AMD pushed out has broken a lot of X470 boards in various ways. On my MSI board it broke PBO in a few ways, and fast boot no longer works here as well.
 
Araxie said:
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.
Click to expand...

Its not AMDs fault though that intel get performance hits from security mitigation and AMD is less subject to it. Also, we are talking about IPC in general and it doesn't really take security hit in to account. For desktop usage it was never really a hit to worry about so in this use case scenario that can' t be used as an excuse. Most of the reviews you see don't really care too much about those security holes
 
IdiotInCharge said:
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.



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



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.



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.



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.
Click to expand...


True if AMD could push clocks without looking like a power hog and out of spec I am sure they would. Intel does worse though with TDP based on base clocks and not taking all core boost into account which is north of 150w on the 9900k I think. They pushed their base clocks higher then intel indeed if you look with IPC increase I think they decided to stay within TDP. We will see where it lands, I am not expecting 5ghz on first go around on 7nm all core OC. May be we see it with 7nm+ next year or with further optimization of the node. I do think as yields get to 90% you will see better and better chips. Although I do expect the 3800x and 3900x to be decently binned chips.

May be this time around AMD is letting people go all at it with power while looking good out of the box.
 
NKD said:
May be this time around AMD is letting people go all at it with power while looking good out of the box.
Click to expand...

Zen and Zen+ dropped off a cliff regardless of voltage and cooling- perhaps Zen2 can scale, and that will certainly be interesting to find out!
 
Meeho said:
It's Coffee Lake from 2017 that AMD is now in the ballpark of. Yes, AMD made huge jumps relatively compared to itself, but overall there is nothing special going on here. Core wars look good o
Click to expand...
travm said:
If it takes 25% more cores and 10% more clock to get 15% improvement one cinebench,.. I'm not sure what more to say.
Click to expand...

I know what else to say: I don't think you quite understand how it all works, which is why you can't grasp why being able to do it with only 25% more cores, and 10% more clock to get a 15% improvement is a REMARKABLE achievement. I will use a sound system (I prefer car audio myself) to hopefully get you to understand, as it has revolves around similar principles of electricity/resistance physics etc. and what it takes to achieve higher output.

If you have a 1000 watt sound system, and it outputs 100 db for the sound pressure level (loudness). How many watts to achieve a 103 db increase, which is only a 3% over 100 db? Do you think it will take 1030 watts to achieve that? (that is a 3% increase in wattage). Do you think it will take 1100 watts? ( that is a 10% increase in wattage, to achieve that 3% increase)..... Well, neither of those answer is correct, or even close. It will take 2000 watts to achieve that messily 3db or 3% increase. That is a 100% increase in wattage for a 3% increase in sound pressure level (loudness), which also means double the power to sustain that 2000 watts. Now, when it comes to increasing performance in a CPU, their are many of the same principles at play, not necessarily as steep, but they are all there. So the very fact that AMD is able to get a 15% increase with only 25% more cores and a 10% clock is a winner, no matter how you look at it. And that is before you factor in that they are also doing it inside a smaller power envelope.

Thanks for showing us how Remarkable it all is with giving us the percentages.
 
Last edited:
schmide said:
If it takes 1000w to get out 100db, you need better Monster HDMI cables.
Click to expand...

It was an example.. so relax (the size of listening envirment plays a large part in loudness). Fact of the matter is, it takes twice as much wattage to gain an increase of 3db. Using my example above, to go to 106db would take 4000 watts. Yes, 1000 watts should most defiantly give you more than 100 db.. (world record is 182.1 db, and it take 200,000 watts to do that in a van) Which is all off topic other than the point I was trying to get across when it comes to the Ryzen 2 performance increases, and the percentages of more cores, and clock speed that was mentioned.


Which is all off topic other than the point I was trying to get across when it comes to the Ryzen 2 performance increases, and the percentages of more cores, and clock speed that was mentioned.
 
Last edited:
mda said:
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.
Click to expand...

If it take a lot of time from black screen to the Asus logo, that is memory training. It should only do that once, unless you change something. Power lose may cause it to do the memory retraining as well, I am not sure.

I have 32 GB of memory, and have no problems (4 x 8GB sticks). However, you may have a weaker memory controller on your 2700x. The fact that you are running 4 X 16GB sticks may be to much for the memory controller on your 2700x. Actually, anything over 2 dimm slots filled, puts a strain on it (hence why most MB QVL only support 2 dimm slots filled, or at least that is how it is for the C7H), which is why most can't get rated speeds when populating 4 dimm stots without increasing voltages, and even then it is hit an miss. (I bet if you removed half of your memory and try only 2 populated slots, you will see a huge difference in boot time afterwards (First boot doesn't count, as it will require memory training again).

Also, is your memory on the QVL? If not, all thought it seems to work, it may be why it doesn't boot up as it should, as it may not be properly supported..
 
Last edited:
NKD said:
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.
Click to expand...
I have, almost two years ago, and still have nothing to upgrade to from either AMD or Intel. So, while I can appreciate AMD's progress, it's not exactly mind blowing. Yeah, yeah, moar corezz, whatever. Not useful for the majority.
 
NWRMidnight said:
I know what else to say: I don't think you quite understand how it all works, which is why you can't grasp why being able to do it with only 25% more cores, and 10% more clock to get a 15% improvement is a REMARKABLE achievement. I will use a sound system (I prefer car audio myself) to hopefully get you to understand, as it has revolves around similar principles of electricity/resistance physics etc. and what it takes to achieve higher output.

If you have a 1000 watt sound system, and it outputs 100 db for the sound pressure level (loudness). How many watts to achieve a 103 db increase, which is only a 3% over 100 db? Do you think it will take 1030 watts to achieve that? (that is a 3% increase in wattage). Do you think it will take 1100 watts? ( that is a 10% increase in wattage, to achieve that 3% increase)..... Well, neither of those answer is correct, or even close. It will take 2000 watts to achieve that messily 3db or 3% increase. That is a 100% increase in wattage for a 3% increase in sound pressure level (loudness), which also means double the power to sustain that 2000 watts. Now, when it comes to increasing performance in a CPU, their are many of the same principles at play, not necessarily as steep, but they are all there. So the very fact that AMD is able to get a 15% increase with only 25% more cores and a 10% clock is a winner, no matter how you look at it. And that is before you factor in that they are also doing it inside a smaller power envelope.

Thanks for showing us how Remarkable it all is with giving us the percentages.
Click to expand...
The last time I cared about efficiency achievements in CPU beyond academic interest was never. Sure, it's great for the company, but of zero use to me. I mostly care about performance in the 4-8 cores range today, and there 's nothing here for me. Why is that so hard to understand? And for the specific high thread use case I could have had a benefit for, it mostly moved on to GPU by now.

So, yes, I can appreciate the progress and what AMD is able to do as an underdog, but for the end user there are limited benefits of it all unless you haven't upgraded in years and have a need for many cores.
 
NWRMidnight said:
It was an example.. so relax (the size of listening envirment plays a large part in loudness). Fact of the matter is, it takes twice as much wattage to gain an increase of 3db. Using my example above, to go to 106db would take 4000 watts. Yes, 1000 watts should most defiantly give you more than 100 db.. (world record is 182.1 db, and it take 200,000 watts to do that in a van) Which is all off topic other than the point I was trying to get across when it comes to the Ryzen 2 performance increases, and the percentages of more cores, and clock speed that was mentioned.
Click to expand...

Relax - it was a good joke. I'll log it for next time.

Sound from speakers is measured at 1m. It takes about 30w to produce 100db of sound.

182db would take 2^32 watts of power, and would be deadly. Those are blast levels.
 
schmide said:
Relax - it was a good joke. I'll log it for next time.

Sound from speakers is measured at 1m. It takes about 30w to produce 100db of sound.

182db would take 2^32 watts of power, and would be deadly. Those are blast levels.
Click to expand...

I am fully aware of how sound is measured, and that it takes 32w to for 100 db at 1 meter, I wasn't trying to get deep into the specifics... I was simplifying it for and used 1000watts/100db for simple math demonstration (you know, easy to do in your head to give an example). For the record, 1000 watts would give you 115 db (actually its 1024 watts). Next time I will forget simplicity and use accurate numbers. :D

And yes, 182db would be deadly levels, hence why the doors are bolted shut and it has 2" think glass windows. :D
 
Last edited:
Meeho said:
The last time I cared about efficiency achievements in CPU beyond academic interest was never. Sure, it's great for the company, but of zero use to me. I mostly care about performance in the 4-8 cores range today, and there 's nothing here for me. Why is that so hard to understand? And for the specific high thread use case I could have had a benefit for, it mostly moved on to GPU by now.

So, yes, I can appreciate the progress and what AMD is able to do as an underdog, but for the end user there are limited benefits of it all unless you haven't upgraded in years and have a need for many cores.
Click to expand...

So, the only end user you are talking about is yourself, right? Because in all honestly, you don't know what is a benefit to any other end user, but yourself. And lets be honest, we are not talking about your average end user when it comes to these processors or any high end processors, as most of us do more than just play games and read email with our machines.
 
NWRMidnight said:
So, the only end user you are talking about is yourself, right? Because in all honestly, you don't know what is a benefit to any other end user, but yourself. And lets be honest, we are not talking about your average end user when it comes to these processors or any high end processors, as most of us do more than just play games and read email with our machines.
Click to expand...
More like >90% of users, actually. As luck would have it, I also do more than game and email.
 
It's not that hard to see where Meeho is coming from. Yeah, if I had a recent Intel CPU and only needed at most 8 cores then this AMD release doesn't mean a whole lot. Sure it's newer and there's some cool features, but as for raw performance at that bracket, AMD just now caught up. From that personal perspective, it would be pretty "meh".

As for other users, most people probably haven't upgraded their cpu in the past 5 years, so this might catch more attention from someone who's held on to their earlier Intel since the gen to gen hasn't been spectacular. Now (if the reviews match the show) they could get 9000 series performance for a good chunk cheaper, unless Intel lowers prices to match these chips on perf/$. Then there would actually be solid competition between the two, a great time to think about upgrading from something earlier in the decade.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meeho
like this
NightReaver said:
It's not that hard to see where Meeho is coming from. Yeah, if I had a recent Intel CPU and only needed at most 8 cores then this AMD release doesn't mean a whole lot. Sure it's newer and there's some cool features, but as for raw performance at that bracket, AMD just now caught up. From that personal perspective, it would be pretty "meh".

As for other users, most people probably haven't upgraded their cpu in the past 5 years, so this might catch more attention from someone who's held on to their earlier Intel since the gen to gen hasn't been spectacular. Now (if the reviews match the show) they could get 9000 series performance for a good chunk cheaper, unless Intel lowers prices to match these chips on perf/$. Then there would actually be solid competition between the two, a great time to think about upgrading from something earlier in the decade.
Click to expand...

Amd didn’t caught intel... destroyed intel line up...
 
wantapple said:
Amd didn’t caught intel... destroyed intel line up...
Click to expand...
Oh come on, let's be a little more nuanced than that. At the current price point? Yeah. If (and that's a big IF) Intel drops prices to be more in line with AMD chips, then both will be good for someone who was looking to already upgrade to a 9000 chip. For someone already near that level of performance? No, there's really no point unless you want the x570 platform. If Intel keeps prices where they're at, I don't really know how anybody wanting to upgrade to a 9000 chip would pick it over AMD.

To me, "destroyed" would mean I'm a current 9900k user, and the 3800x was so much better that I couldn't wait to replace it. I guess there's always a chance that if the reviews backup the show benchmarks, maybe you can sell your intel setup and pocket some cash moving to AMD?
 
It's actually quite good, best case scenario is 16 core Zen2 ES, vs 16 core Zen+TR with a 30% improvement in cinibench MT, at essentially same clocks.

The rest will not be as good, but if it is as good as currently advertized, ie 5% gain on clock speed and 15% gain IPC, we are talking about 2700x 5.2ghz equivalent, and that is rather good from a single gen jump.

Probably not enough to upgrade from 9900k, but should be an improvement on just about anything else.
 
Oh come on, with all those security flaws who will want an intel cpu now? after 5 years im done with intel. dont forget that AMD 12core is in the same price bracket as 9900k...
 
wantapple said:
Oh come on, with all those security flaws who will want an intel cpu now? after 5 years im done with intel. dont forget that AMD 12core is in the same price bracket as 9900k...
Click to expand...
True, if I was upgrading my cpu in a month and the prices stayed where they are now? I'd go AMD hands down. Would be stupid not to.

What if the 9900k was reduced in price to 3800x levels though? Tougher question. I'd probably still go AMD because I've enjoyed my 1600, but some might still want Intel. Sure, this sort of price drop would cut into their margins, but it would help stop the market share hemorrhage.
9700k would have to be cheaper than the 3700x (if those single thread benchmarks hold true), because why would you pay the same or more for less threads and similar single core performance?

That's all speculation, of course. We'll know for sure once the reviews start dropping.
 
Araxie said:
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..
Click to expand...

But in reality if your cpu architects take short cuts on their design then does that not tell you enough on how they got ahead in the first place?
If that Intel team has the same approach take short cuts because it will provide better benchmarks it also means that unless they start from scratch those chip even the ones today can run into the same problems with security flaws.
 
Araxie said:
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..
Click to expand...
Umm. If your source for the 15% number is this Phoronix article, that is based on the geometric mean of all tests, not only single core. And the 15% figure specifically included disabling HyperThreading which does not affect single core performance at all.
Also the security mitigations' impact for Ryzen and the newer hardware-mitigated Intel CPUs are much less severe.

The IPC difference according to AMD between Ryzen 2000 and 3000 (1 year apart) is 15% with same security mitigations.
The IPC difference according to Intel between Skylake and Ice Lake (almost 4 years apart) is 18% with the former hit by much more severe security mitigations.
 
alxlwson said:
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
Click to expand...

I have the CH VI (1600X) and the CH VII (2700X) and, much like yourself, I don't see a delay in POST'ing. I'm wondering what's up with mda's post times now...
 
notarat said:
I have the CH VI (1600X) and the CH VII (2700X) and, much like yourself, I don't see a delay in POST'ing. I'm wondering what's up with mda's post times now...
Click to expand...


He maybe has fast boot turned off? I think that's what it is called
 
NightReaver said:
True, if I was upgrading my cpu in a month and the prices stayed where they are now? I'd go AMD hands down. Would be stupid not to.

What if the 9900k was reduced in price to 3800x levels though? Tougher question. I'd probably still go AMD because I've enjoyed my 1600, but some might still want Intel. Sure, this sort of price drop would cut into their margins, but it would help stop the market share hemorrhage.
9700k would have to be cheaper than the 3700x (if those single thread benchmarks hold true), because why would you pay the same or more for less threads and similar single core performance?

That's all speculation, of course. We'll know for sure once the reviews start dropping.
Click to expand...

If the 9900K were reduced in price to the same as the 3800X, I would jump all over the 3800X. The 9900K is riddled with security vulnerabilities that do not affect the AMD offering anywhere near as much. The power required to run the 9900K is far greater than the AMD Offering. The upgrade path to the 3800X is easier since the AM4 socket will support the upgrade from a 1600X to a 3800X. Fuck Intel.
 
Meeho said:
The last time I cared about efficiency achievements in CPU beyond academic interest was never. Sure, it's great for the company, but of zero use to me. I mostly care about performance in the 4-8 cores range today, and there 's nothing here for me. Why is that so hard to understand? And for the specific high thread use case I could have had a benefit for, it mostly moved on to GPU by now.

So, yes, I can appreciate the progress and what AMD is able to do as an underdog, but for the end user there are limited benefits of it all unless you haven't upgraded in years and have a need for many cores.
Click to expand...

More GHZ will not always be the answer. They have to find ways to improve IPC and bring more cores to mainstream. This is how it always works, hardware has to reach more and more people for software to wake the fuck up. With that mindset you will never be able to use more than 4-8 cores.

They brought another 15% IPC bump in 2 years. I guess it doesn't work for you so you have to wait but you are asking for miracles from AMD. You should be pissed at intel for sitting on their asses lol.
 
NKD said:
More GHZ will not always be the answer. They have to find ways to improve IPC and bring more cores to mainstream. This is how it always works, hardware has to reach more and more people for software to wake the fuck up. With that mindset you will never be able to use more than 4-8 cores.

They brought another 15% IPC bump in 2 years. I guess it doesn't work for you so you have to wait but you are asking for miracles from AMD. You should be pissed at intel for sitting on their asses lol.
Click to expand...
That's all well and good, but I'm not in the business of patting companies on the back for being a good boy. I'm in the business of buying products with tangible benefits and while Zen 2 is great for AMD, and us by bringing healthy competition, it doesn't make it any better in terms of value or performance gain for people that have already upgraded in the last couple of years. It brings yesteryear's level of performance for a better price. Great, but not that exciting. It fairs much better for 12 cores and more, if your parallelism needs aren't met by GPUs already. That's where AMD has no competition currently.
 
Meeho said:
That's all well and good, but I'm not in the business of patting companies on the back for being a good boy. I'm in the business of buying products with tangible benefits and while Zen 2 is great for AMD, and us by bringing healthy competition, it doesn't make it any better in terms of value or performance gain for people that have already upgraded in the last couple of years. It brings yesteryear's level of performance for a better price. Great, but not that exciting.
Click to expand...

like I said it doesn't work for you. I am sure AMD won't make everyone happy. I for sure will be upgrading and giving big middle finger to Intel for sitting on their ass.
 
Meeho said:
That's all well and good, but I'm not in the business of patting companies on the back for being a good boy. I'm in the business of buying products with tangible benefits and while Zen 2 is great for AMD, and us by bringing healthy competition, it doesn't make it any better in terms of value or performance gain for people that have already upgraded in the last couple of years. It brings yesteryear's level of performance for a better price. Great, but not that exciting.
Click to expand...

It might not be exciting to you for your personal hardware, but that doesn't mean it isn't exciting in terms of the wider market. There was never going to be a situation where AMD took Zen+ from where it was to well above current Intel tech. Anyone expecting that was fooling themselves. However, if AMD is able to keep advancing Zen gen-to-gen it means there will be a good fight going on in the CPU sector and that should make everyone excited.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top