AMD Ryzen R9 3900X Review Round Up

OrangeKhrush

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
1,614
it looks like the IPC is genuine clock vs clock IPC gain rather than clockspeed boosted which is rare to see. While the max frequency is slightly down on expectations the performance is genuinely there despite the offset so that is very impressive from AMD's side.
 

lightsout

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 15, 2014
Messages
1,086
Yeah kind of a bummer on the clock speeds from the couple reviews I saw, good performance though. Hopefully [H] users can get some better OC's. I haven't seen a store with the 3700 available yet.
 

Snowdog

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
10,027
No real surprises.

These destroy Intel in highly parallel workloads. Much better perf/watt than Intel.

Intel is still top dog in gaming.

OC seems to top out at 4.2-4.3GHz.
 

OrangeKhrush

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
1,614
No real surprises.

These destroy Intel in highly parallel workloads. Much better perf/watt than Intel.

Intel is still top dog in gaming.

OC seems to top out at 4.2-4.3GHz.
Outside a couple of instances Intels price/perf in gaming also took a knock today
 

Snowdog

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
10,027
I usually don't bother with YT only reviews, but De8auer does unique content, with delidding, and interesting OC info. On Ambient he still gets 4.2-4.3 GHz like other reviews, and he tested something like a dozen CPUs.

Even on LN2 many wouldn't do 5.0GHz.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Nobu
like this

Master_shake_

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Apr 9, 2012
Messages
10,683
techpowerup dropped the ball here.

wizzard has the forum comment on the review page and the review page on the forum comment.

:ROFLMAO:
 

Snowdog

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
10,027
Outside a couple of instances Intels price/perf in gaming also took a knock today
For the price sensitive, they are likely going to be GPU limited anyway, so already choosing Ryzen. For DIY desktop, Ryzen 2000 was already killing Intel.

The things AMD needs to really impact volume, is more OEM wins and more Laptop wins (need the 7nm APU for that).
 

OrangeKhrush

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
1,614
For the price sensitive, they are likely going to be GPU limited anyway, so already choosing Ryzen. For DIY desktop, Ryzen 2000 was already killing Intel.

The things AMD needs to really impact volume, is more OEM wins and more Laptop wins (need the 7nm APU for that).
I would like a good showing in mobile APU options
 
  • Like
Reactions: dgz
like this

dgz

[H]ardness Supreme
Joined
Feb 15, 2010
Messages
5,692
Phoronix said:
So as compelling as the performance is for the AMD 3700X/3900X, if you are a Linux user wanting to run a bleeding-edge distribution you may want to hold off on purchasing this new hardware until hearing more on Phoronix. But if you want to use the likes of Ubuntu 18.04 LTS, the Ryzen 7 3700X and Ryzen 9 3900X pose incredible competition to Intel's latest processors for both single and multi-threaded workloads.
Decisions, decisions
 

ryan_975

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Feb 6, 2006
Messages
14,277
it looks like the IPC is genuine clock vs clock IPC gain rather than clockspeed boosted which is rare to see. While the max frequency is slightly down on expectations the performance is genuinely there despite the offset so that is very impressive from AMD's side.
This doesn't even make sense. IPC is instructions per clock... Being "clockspeed boosted" doesn't increase IPC. Also, "Clock vs clock IPC" is simply nonsense because the "per clock" part of IPC factors out the clock speed.
 

OrangeKhrush

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
1,614
This doesn't even make sense. IPC is instructions per clock... Being "clockspeed boosted" doesn't increase IPC. Also, "Clock vs clock IPC" is simply nonsense because the "per clock" part of IPC factors out the clock speed.
The more common trend these days have been lofty claims of IPC gains but when tested clock vs clock it has been more or less the same. The performance has come from massive clock bumps and comparing to older generation stock clocked CPU's with lower base and turbo ranges. The readers have often been confused into thinking IPC and performance were the same thing. What many reviews are showing is that a 3600 for instance at the same frequency does a lot more than a similar clocked 2600 and 1600.
 

ryan_975

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Feb 6, 2006
Messages
14,277
The more common trend these days have been lofty claims of IPC gains but when tested clock vs clock it has been more or less the same. The performance has come from massive clock bumps and comparing to older generation stock clocked CPU's with lower base and turbo ranges. The readers have often been confused into thinking IPC and performance were the same thing. What many reviews are showing is that a 3600 for instance at the same frequency does a lot more than a similar clocked 2600 and 1600.
If AMD or Intel are claiming IPC gains that are proving to be just clock speed bumps, I'd like to see that.
 

Dan_D

[H]ard as it Gets
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
55,505
Wow, no real reason to upgrade my 2700X since these don't clock worth a crap.
The Ryzen 9 3900X is most certainly an upgrade over the 2700X. Despite the modest clock speed increase on an all core overclock, its significantly faster at virtually everything. Not only that, but it boost clocks significantly higher using PB2 or PBO. Even an eight core Ryzen 7 3800X would still be faster at anything than the Ryzen 7 2700X.

it looks like the IPC is genuine clock vs clock IPC gain rather than clockspeed boosted which is rare to see. While the max frequency is slightly down on expectations the performance is genuinely there despite the offset so that is very impressive from AMD's side.
I'm going to use this opportunity to say I called it. I said that we'd be lucky to hit an all core overclock that was in line with the boost clocks. I also said we might even see overclocks on all cores that were less than the boost clocks. That's exactly what happened.
 

ccityinstaller

[H]ardness Supreme
Joined
Feb 23, 2007
Messages
4,236
I wish I had seen the Anandtech reviews on power constraints...I would have purchased the 3800x for sure vs the 65W 3700x.

Newegg only had the 3700 and 3900x for sale. Thry only now list the 3800x in combos with new Mobos.

Amazon has the 3800x as "currently unavailable" with no idea when it is back.
 

sleepybp

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Messages
389
Power efficiency, ipc improvement, and competitive pricing look great.

If this doesnt secure significant server market share from intel, there is some shady shit going on.

The max clock speeds are very disappointing for 7nm (4.2 ghz ryzen + vs 4.3 ghz ryzen 2).

Was planning to upgrade my 2600x for gaming boost, but Due to 700 mhz clock speed gap vs intel, i now have little incentive and will wait for the next big thing in 2020 (intel or zen 3).

That said, for those on older platforms, the 6/8 core zen 3 are excellent price performance ratio
 
Last edited:

sleepybp

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Messages
389
Why would a consumer CPU release affect the server market in any way, shape or form?
Are these chiplets not the same utilized in upcoming Rome release?
I would expect nearly identical (or better due to binning for enterprise higher margin) ipc and power efficiency gains here for the Rome product.
 

DooKey

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Apr 25, 2001
Messages
8,286
The Ryzen 9 3900X is most certainly an upgrade over the 2700X. Despite the modest clock speed increase on an all core overclock, its significantly faster at virtually everything. Not only that, but it boost clocks significantly higher using PB2 or PBO. Even an eight core Ryzen 7 3800X would still be faster at anything than the Ryzen 7 2700X.



I'm going to use this opportunity to say I called it. I said that we'd be lucky to hit an all core overclock that was in line with the boost clocks. I also said we might even see overclocks on all cores that were less than the boost clocks. That's exactly what happened.
I guess I'll give one a try when Amazon gets some.
 

Riccochet

Off Topic Award
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
22,909
clock speed isn't everything. IPC is. It's been proven time and time again. Remember the A64 days? A 2.2 Ghz A64 was straight up destroying Intel's P4 at 4.0 Ghz.

I never understood the clockspeed wars when architecture advances yield better results.
 

ryan_975

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Feb 6, 2006
Messages
14,277
clock speed isn't everything. IPC is. It's been proven time and time again. Remember the A64 days? A 2.2 Ghz A64 was straight up destroying Intel's P4 at 4.0 Ghz.

I never understood the clockspeed wars when architecture advances yield better results.
IPC without clock speed means nothing. If product A has 10% higher IPC, but product B has 20% better clocks, product B is going to have better performance.
 

Flogger23m

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
10,337
Nice reviews at FPS Review (skimmed GPU and CPU).

For those looking for games with the new AMD CPUs at high resolutions (closer to real in game performance) Tech Power UP has them.

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-3700x/16.html

Looks like they're still slower than Intel's offerings overall, but in most games the difference isn't big at all. Some exceptions like Far Cry 5 where the Ryzen seems to fall behind.
 

GSDragoon

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 24, 2004
Messages
140
Reviews are about what I expected. Should be a huge upgrade from a 2500K. Been wanting to upgrade for a few years now. Amazon was slow to get stuff, so I ordered the 3900X from AMD.com and MB (X570) from NewEgg. Need to get the MB to make sure the air cooler I want will fit. Exciting times! It should be fun to play with.
 

Riccochet

Off Topic Award
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
22,909
Nice reviews at FPS Review (skimmed GPU and CPU).

For those looking for games with the new AMD CPUs at high resolutions (closer to real in game performance) Tech Power UP has them.

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-3700x/16.html

Looks like they're still slower than Intel's offerings overall, but in most games the difference isn't big at all. Some exceptions like Far Cry 5 where the Ryzen seems to fall behind.
Yet, here we are with a 3900X beating a 9900K.
 

Rizen

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2000
Messages
9,257
9900K still wrecks AMD for gaming. That's all I need to know.
Eh, the difference is mostly within the margin of error at high resolution, I wouldn't classify the difference as "wrecking" AMD. Is Intel faster? Yes. Is it a noticeable percentage? I guess that depends. Most people are GPU limited and even if you are not, it's such a small difference overall, vs the performance increase in almost everything outside of games...

I want one of these just for the PCI-E 4.0 support and twice the cores at the same price.
 

Riccochet

Off Topic Award
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
22,909
I want to see how a 3900X performs in a single PC streaming setup. Since it handles encoding so efficiently, would this processor negate the need for a dedicated streaming PC?
 

Derangel

[H]ard as it Gets
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
18,498
9900K still wrecks AMD for gaming. That's all I need to know.
Interestingly, the difference seems to be more down to Intel's higher clock speeds than IPC now. If AMD could have found a way to increase Zen 2's clocks to near 9900K levels it might have wiped the floor with it in gaming. Or, at the very least, got much closer.
 

Brackle

Old Timer
Joined
Jun 19, 2003
Messages
7,283
If you leave the 9900k stock, then AMD is very close in performance. The issue is the 9900k can get to 4.8-5ghz, where AMD "might" be able to hit 4.4ghz.

I mean for raw gaming performance it is true the 9900k is still king at stock, but not by much.
 

tangoseal

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Dec 18, 2010
Messages
8,258
My 2950x would hit 165 ish single Thread in r15 at 4.1ghz.

The 3700x today in Mcenter they had on demo would hit 201 at 4.3ghz.

Umm that's no a result of a clock speed bump. That's a far more efficient core performance.

Intel guys just dont know how to yield this one to AMD

So why not let AMD eat thier cake this time. You'll get your 10nm Intel soon enough then you can eat your cake.
 
Top