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

ChadD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
4,792
Biggest advantage... unless some crazy bug effects launch hardware. No playing the stepping lotto with your purchase. You can run a fully secureity mitigated system on any of these and give up 3% in performance.... not 8-16% depending.

With mitigations on AMDs current 2k chips where already starting to look to be on par... so ya a 15% bump and increased core count looks pretty darn good. Looking forward to some reliable reviews.
 

ManofGod

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
12,031
Biggest advantage... unless some crazy bug effects launch hardware. No playing the stepping lotto with your purchase. You can run a fully secureity mitigated system on any of these and give up 3% in performance.... not 8-16% depending.

With mitigations on AMDs current 2k chips where already starting to look to be on par... so ya a 15% bump and increased core count looks pretty darn good. Looking forward to some reliable reviews.

And that 15% bump in IPC is clock for clock and does not account for the clock speed itself.
 

Meeho

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
5,140
Why is everyone so obsessed with 5ghz?
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.
 

dragonstongue

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 18, 2008
Messages
3,162
same launch price as the 1600x and 20 dollars more then the 2600x.. 1600 launched for 219 and the 2600 launched for 199.. 3700x is the same launch price as the 2700x so all the prices fall within the same area as the previous two generations which is pretty nice.

that was my thinking as well. I guess that chiplet style allowed them a few things such as higher clocks, easier to produce and likely far far higher "good yields" while because of the chiplet they likely reduce transistor budget from expensive if all 7nm to mehh for a combo 7 and 14 (7 pricey 14 cheap... one helps the other)

Will be quite interesting to see how they do in "the real world" (same goes for Navi) them big boys need to be slapped around a few times for their own good, hopefully one where they can find as unbiased test method as possible so everyone would see and agree "Wow is that fast, and it uses not all that much power to manage it"
 

Pieter3dnow

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
6,785
Why is everyone so obsessed with 5ghz? Why is the frequency always a determining factor. It's like AMD should have suffered an IPC reduction to get the clocks up higher. Then people will say it's not fast enough. Let's see what the chip does before we come to any conclusions. Looks like the 12 core will need that chipset fan on the X570. Not so much the 8 core models and below. I'll likely go for a 3700x and call it a day.

Ryzen 9 3900X 12/24 3.8 / 4.6 70MB 40 $ 499 <-- TDP 105 Watt. Same as R7 2700x have you seen any chipset fan needed for overclocking those ?

The X570 gets hotter when using M.2 in raid that is the only reason for the fan.

The R9 3900x should need nothing more then a bios upgrade to run on all the boards that support 105 Watt even on X370 ..
 

Mode13

Gawd
Joined
Jun 11, 2018
Messages
850
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.

This is worth talking about. AMD just jumped from beneath haswell to TODAY'S intel chips (not yesterday). Intel is forcing out a 5ghz probably overvolted 9900k to compete. This is today.

We're getting a chip with 50% more cores and matching or slightly higher single core performance for the same price as the 9900k and somehow that's not awesome. The brand bias on these boards is wacky.

Anything new from intel is a while off now, and this is completely ignoring how knee deep in a sweeping new architechure they're caught up in in light of all the side channel attacks. AMD may have time for a refresh before Intel even answers.

It would be awesome if we can OC ryzen 3xxx to 5ghz but I've been reserved to 4.6ghz in every thread about this. Arch upgrade on a brand new node, at least give them until a refresh before we get the mystical 5ghz all core.

If the IPC gains are accurate, 4.3ghz on a ryzen 3000 would be equivalent to 5ghz ballpark on a 2700x (quick mental math 15% of 4300). With 50% more cores.... This is significant and the first time intel has had a matching competitor since the athlon 64.
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
19,377
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.

No, today's Intel level of performance. Its not like the 9 series is some years old chip that AMD is just now matching. Its a 9 month old product that AMD looks to have caught up to. If that 15% ends of being the average across the board this will be the biggest gen-to-gen IPC increase since Sandy Bridge in 2011. How the hell is this not worth talking about?
 

craigdt

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 27, 2016
Messages
1,068
This is super exciting.

This long time Intel fanboy is tired of the same ol same ol and ready for some additional cores.

And I can drop on into my cheapo AB350 board? Neat
 

Majinhoju

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
1,359
I'm intrigued. I've been holding onto my 4670k setup but it would be nice to start using more than 4 cores. Hopefully the wife won't mind me splurging on some hardware later this year, haha.
 

Pieter3dnow

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
6,785
I'm intrigued. I've been holding onto my 4670k setup but it would be nice to start using more than 4 cores. Hopefully the wife won't mind me splurging on some hardware later this year, haha.
Your wife already threatened you she would leave you if you bought anything else then Intel ?
 

RanceJustice

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 9, 2003
Messages
5,943
I admit I was a bit disappointed not to see the 16 core behemoth, but overall this is still very promising indeed. I hope the 12-core can reach an all-core OC'ed turbo of 5.0ghz+ with good air or AIO liquid. I would be ready to pull the trigger, but I am curious if either A) the 16 core variant is going to be hanging out a couple of months down the road or B) Threadripper Zen2 returns. The removal of Threadripper seemed logical if they could deliver 16 performance cores (and other features of TR like PCI-E lanes etc) on the mainstream Ryzen platform, but where things stand now seems to create more questions.
 

mda

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 23, 2011
Messages
1,902
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.
 

horrorshow

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
7,784
This recent development has all but guaranteed I'll be upgrading to Zen2 this fall.

*starts setting money aside for cpu/mobo/ram*
 

ChadD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
4,792
People shouldn't be so hung up on Ghz numbers. 4.6 and 5.0 if you sit anyone down in front of two 12 core machines running at 4.6 and 5.0 I have zero doubt no one will be able to tell the difference without running benchmarks. Even on 20 minute video renders the difference is going to be counted in low single digit seconds. But even with 7nm your going to chug probably 20% more power. IF AMD has this dialed in for performance to watt usage anything over 4.5 is great. (and I'm sure they do... there is always a sweet spot for perf to watts)

I hope Intel has an answer in the next few months.... cause we would all love to see that 16 core AM4 chip hit the market. lol
 

ChadD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
4,792
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 think that is more a difference between MB mfgs then anything AMD has done. I have built a few ryzen systems now... and the Asus boards post faster then the gigabyte boards ime, granted I haven't setup 100s or anything. Anecdotal I know but its what I have seen anyway on the 5 or 6 boards I have used.
 

Meeho

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
5,140
This is worth talking about. AMD just jumped from beneath haswell to TODAY'S intel chips (not yesterday). Intel is forcing out a 5ghz probably overvolted 9900k to compete. This is today.

We're getting a chip with 50% more cores and matching or slightly higher single core performance for the same price as the 9900k and somehow that's not awesome. The brand bias on these boards is wacky.

Anything new from intel is a while off now, and this is completely ignoring how knee deep in a sweeping new architechure they're caught up in in light of all the side channel attacks. AMD may have time for a refresh before Intel even answers.

It would be awesome if we can OC ryzen 3xxx to 5ghz but I've been reserved to 4.6ghz in every thread about this. Arch upgrade on a brand new node, at least give them until a refresh before we get the mystical 5ghz all core.

If the IPC gains are accurate, 4.3ghz on a ryzen 3000 would be equivalent to 5ghz ballpark on a 2700x (quick mental math 15% of 4300). With 50% more cores.... This is significant and the first time intel has had a matching competitor since the athlon 64.

No, today's Intel level of performance. Its not like the 9 series is some years old chip that AMD is just now matching. Its a 9 month old product that AMD looks to have caught up to. If that 15% ends of being the average across the board this will be the biggest gen-to-gen IPC increase since Sandy Bridge in 2011. How the hell is this not worth talking about?

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 on paper, but >90% of even the enthusiast crowd here don't benefit from more than 6/12 or 8/8.
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
19,377
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 on paper, but >90% of even the enthusiast crowd here don't benefit from more than 6/12 or 8/8.

The same can be said for 5Ghz. Even when it comes to gaming, the difference between 4.6 and 5Ghz is minimal. Even in CPU heavy games like Total War or Civ that difference isn't going to be much to write home about.
 

NWRMidnight

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 23, 2010
Messages
351
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.
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.
 
Last edited:

elite.mafia

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
13,461
Why is everyone so obsessed with 5ghz? Why is the frequency always a determining factor. It's like AMD should have suffered an IPC reduction to get the clocks up higher. Then people will say it's not fast enough. Let's see what the chip does before we come to any conclusions. Looks like the 12 core will need that chipset fan on the X570. Not so much the 8 core models and below. I'll likely go for a 3700x and call it a day.
Because of the bullshit leaks from last fall by AdoredTV
 

Meeho

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
5,140
The same can be said for 5Ghz. Even when it comes to gaming, the difference between 4.6 and 5Ghz is minimal. Even in CPU heavy games like Total War or Civ that difference isn't going to be much to write home about.
Well, it's about 5.7 GHz Ryzen 2xxx if we go by 15% IPC gain, and many more workloads would benefit from that than high core counts.
 

Mode13

Gawd
Joined
Jun 11, 2018
Messages
850
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 on paper, but >90% of even the enthusiast crowd here don't benefit from more than 6/12 or 8/8.

But what does Intel have better coming within the next year? Their gen to gen jumps have been next to nothing, besides more cores.

I could rewind back to 2014 when I built my 4790k and type what you just said: 90% of the enthusiast crowd here don't benefit from more than 4/4 or 4/8. I'm still using the 4790k and now 8/16 is completely in style, even without much more single core performance. If this 4790k had twice as many cores running at the same 24/7 4.8ghz OC, I wouldn't even care to upgrade this year. So everyone says cores are good on paper, but that's all we're getting is more cores from both parties. The cores will become useful for everyone eventually, though I guess I'm in the 10% of people who use VMs and constantly have a compiler or handbrake running.

If intel had an 8/16 chip and a 12/24 chip for the same exact price with the same exact per core performance, which would you choose? The 8/16 would sell zero copies. Though many people would call the extra cores no benefit.

What we're getting now is better performance at a lower cost. Intel is going to have to drop the price of 8/16 chips and bring affordable 12 and 16 cores to the market. No way to spin that into a negative.
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
11,267
But what does Intel have better coming within the next year? Their gen to gen jumps have been next to nothing, besides more cores.

Nothing for Desktop enthusiasts.

Though Ice Lake looks very interesting for Laptops, with new, much faster IGPU, and first new core design in ages (Sunny Cove).
 

Meeho

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
5,140
But what does Intel have better coming within the next year? Their gen to gen jumps have been next to nothing, besides more cores.

I could rewind back to 2014 when I built my 4790k and type what you just said: 90% of the enthusiast crowd here don't benefit from more than 4/4 or 4/8. I'm still using the 4790k and now 8/16 is completely in style, even without much more single core performance. If this 4790k had twice as many cores running at the same 24/7 4.8ghz OC, I wouldn't even care to upgrade this year. So everyone says cores are good on paper, but that's all we're getting is more cores from both parties. The cores will become useful for everyone eventually, though I guess I'm in the 10% of people who use VMs and constantly have a compiler or handbrake running.

If intel had an 8/16 chip and a 12/24 chip for the same exact price with the same exact per core performance, which would you choose? The 8/16 would sell zero copies. Though many people would call the extra cores no benefit.

What we're getting now is better performance at a lower cost. Intel is going to have to drop the price of 8/16 chips and bring affordable 12 and 16 cores to the market. No way to spin that into a negative.
It's far from negative, just not much to get hyped about and not as good as expected. Still good and welcomed competition, but I hoped for more because AMD can't afford to be just slightly better than Intel. It's nice to have 12/24 and more for that elusive day (more) software finally catches up, but I was hoping for better 6/12 - 8/16 range. There's nothing there for Intel 7-9xxx >6/6 owners. There's barely anything for me with a seven years old 6/12 OCed Sandy.
 

Mode13

Gawd
Joined
Jun 11, 2018
Messages
850
It's far from negative, just not much to get hyped about and not as good as expected. Still good and welcomed competition, but I hoped for more because AMD can't afford to be just slightly better than Intel. It's nice to have 12/24 and more for that elusive day (more) software finally catches up, but I was hoping for better 6/12 - 8/16 range. There's nothing there for Intel 7-9xxx >6/6 owners. There's barely anything for me with a seven years old 6/12 OCed Sandy.

Ah yes this I can understand. The whole market is stagnant though. The best we can do is wait until the new node matures a bit and AMD has a refresh, I'm assuming that will be on 7nm+ EUV. By then I bet we're seeing 5ghz all core OCed with a simple AIO easily, but still that wont be a big gain for people already on existing coffee lake builds. I'd like more performance in single core for my gaming rig just like you, but we're just not getting it from anybody yet..

My big hope, as I've said before, Intel seems to have finally lost the performance lead even if its only by a tiny margin. Hopefully this prompts them to hit the drawing books and drop a real winner on us soon. They've given AMD over 5 years to catch up against their very minimal gains, so should have been obvious this was coming. Either we're at a major performance wall now or Intel drops a crazy core 2 duo bomb on the market again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meeho
like this

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,712
No, today's Intel level of performance. Its not like the 9 series is some years old chip that AMD is just now matching. Its a 9 month old product that AMD looks to have caught up to.

It's Skylake, with perhaps a tad of optimization, but it's the Skylake core, which is over a half decade old. Drop two 6700K's into a socket and clock to 5GHz, and you have a 9900K.

AMD has potentially (we're taking their numbers here) caught up to an Intel uarch that should have been surpassed by Intel over three years ago, mostly by relying on a new, third-party fab while Intel is spinning up their own. Hopefully AMD has their eyes set on a Zen2+ to keep the ball rolling.
 

Nathan_P

[H]ard DCOTM x2
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
3,431
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?????
 

elite.mafia

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
13,461
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?????
Honestly all the people saying they are dissapointed are insane. zen to zen+ was like a 3% ipc improvement. This is a really big jump. 15%!
 

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,712
This is a really big jump. 15%!

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.
 

pillagenburn

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 3, 2006
Messages
1,099
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
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 on paper, but >90% of even the enthusiast crowd here don't benefit from more than 6/12 or 8/8.

Except that Intel is a proven cheater on performance by sacrificing security - this is an indisputable fact that no one should be even remotely trying to refute at this point. Intel to AMD IPC is apples to oranges at this point.

if you're buying Intel right now you're buying into the guy in the bicycle race that's juiced up with no testicles. You're betting on the guy that will get caught cheating after the race and have his titles stripped from him.
 

Meeho

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
5,140
Except that Intel is a proven cheater on performance by sacrificing security - this is an indisputable fact that no one should be even remotely trying to refute at this point. Intel to AMD IPC is apples to oranges at this point.

if you're buying Intel right now you're buying into the guy in the bicycle race that's juiced up with no testicles. You're betting on the guy that will get caught cheating after the race and have his titles stripped from him.
That's a valid point.
 

Mode13

Gawd
Joined
Jun 11, 2018
Messages
850
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)
 

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,712
Totally derailing with self thought but I'm assuming X570 will be forward compatible with zen 2+?

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.
 

gigaxtreme1

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 1, 2002
Messages
3,528
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?????
Rabid fanboyism and prejudice. Let God be the judge.
 

TheSlySyl

Gawd
Joined
May 30, 2018
Messages
571
Cool, I'm kinda glad its topping out at 12C/24T because that's honestly all I really think I need, if it was 16C/32T I'd probably be annoyed that I couldn't afford the best (or I would go out of my way to make sure I do.)

Looks like a pretty damn decent same socket upgrade from my 1700.

Still gonna wait a few months for the reviews and see if I want to go all in and go X570 as well.
 

Meeho

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
5,140
Cool, I'm kinda glad its topping out at 12C/24T because that's honestly all I really think I need, if it was 16C/32T I'd probably be annoyed that I couldn't afford the best (or I would go out of my way to make sure I do.)

Looks like a pretty damn decent same socket upgrade from my 1700.

Still gonna wait a few months for the reviews and see if I want to go all in and go X570 as well.
https://www.thefpsreview.com/2019/05/27/amd-ryzen-9-16-core-processor-demoed-at-computex/
 
Top