Benchmark Results so close - why the big price difference?

B

Barometer

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 25, 2012
Messages
155
I was looking at the AMD Ryzen 1600S vs Ryzen 1700 vs Ryzen 1700X vs Ryzen 1800X vs Ryzen 2700X vs Ryzen 3700X

and to be honest, the benchmark results look very close. Only a minor gain (like 1%) with each step up in CPU's.

If it's that close, why the steep jump in price from one to the other? For example, does the 3700X at nearly 3 times the price really give you nearly 3 times the increase in performance over the 1700X ?

For practical intents, playing a CPU intensive game for example, are you going to experiece 3 times the improvement in game play?

Kinda new to this so go easy. lol
 
There are many factors that may or may not increase performance depending on your usage scenario.

Some vague reference to "benchmark results" means nothing. What exactly was being benchmarked?

The biggest improvements, by far, come from multi-threaded workloads where the huge increase in core-count can be taken advantage of.

Single-threaded workloads show much smaller improvements, but should still be faster on Zen2 compared to previous chips.

Maybe give us more info on exactly what benchmarks you are looking at, or even better, tell us what you use your processor for.

"CPU intensive game" could mean anything including a game that is able to use a lot of threads, or a game that only uses a single thread. Meaningless without context.
 
3700x will run circles around 2700x in many areas. Here's what the new person doesn't know and sales people dont know to tell you.

3700x you're getting a huge l3 cache significantly more than other chips.Far more than Intel as well. Also you're getting 7nm compared to 12nm. 3rd gen is a 65 watt chip that runs much faster with much more stable ram overclocking support. There is little effort in overclocking already overclocked ram. Also the uncore, or the portion of CPU that has ram controller, USB, and other functions are not on the same silicon as the compute cores. This means the actual cores can run a separate and much more stable and higher clock frequency than the old ryzens.

These improvements relate to much higher multithreaded throughput. Also the single thread is 15 or more % higher between (1st/2nd) gen and 3rd gen.

I'm not sure what benches your referencing as your information but I absolutely assure you significant performance was achieved over the last 2 gens with 3rd gen Ryzen.

Also you get a really good, probably best on market, wraith Prism cooler with the 3700x when Intel doesnt give you squat.

Good luck in your search.

Absolutely spend the extra on the 3700x. If it's too much chip for you now, it wont be in 2 or 3 years of software advancement.
 
Last edited:
GotNoRice said:
There are many factors that may or may not increase performance depending on your usage scenario.
Some vague reference to "benchmark results" means nothing. What exactly was being benchmarked?
Click to expand...

I think you may have over thought this question. It wasn't about any particular computer per se.....but overall.
I was specifically referring to Ryzen CPU's and readily available Benchmark results from programs such as CPU-Z...or online where they compare many CPU's and a variety of other hardware.

For example.....
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-7-2700X-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-1800X/3958vs3916

If you plug in all the various Ryzen 7 CPUS one by one, you will see that tens of thousands of users have submitted their Benchmarks that can be compared against tens of thousands of benchmarks of another CPU of similar equipment I believe.
What I found is that among the Ryzen 7 2nd Gen CPUS, going from 1600 to 3700x isn't that much of a difference.....according to tens of thousands of people that is.

GotNoRice said:
The biggest improvements, by far, come from multi-threaded workloads where the huge increase in core-count can be taken advantage of.
Single-threaded workloads show much smaller improvements, but should still be faster on Zen2 compared to previous chips.
Maybe give us more info on exactly what benchmarks you are looking at, or even better, tell us what you use your processor for.
"CPU intensive game" could mean anything including a game that is able to use a lot of threads, or a game that only uses a single thread. Meaningless without context.
Click to expand...

Right. But why spend $400 on a CPU that only gives you a 1% performance increase over a $150 CPU, as reported by the Benchmarking software mentioned above?

Believe me...I'll buy the best CPU I can for my needs (which at this point leans towards a Gen 2 Ryzen 1800X or 2700X)....but I'd rather not go overboard on the spending if not really necessary.
 
Last edited:
tangoseal said:
3700x will run circles around 2700x in many areas. Here's what the new person doesn't know and sales people dont know to tell you.

3700x you're getting a huge l3 cache significantly more than other chips.Far more than Intel as well. Also you're getting 7nm compared to 12nm. 3rd gen is a 65 watt chip that runs much faster with much more stable ram overclocking support. There is little effort in overclocking already overclocked ram. Also the uncore, or the portion of CPU that has ram controller, USB, and other functions are not on the same silicon as the compute cores. This means the actual cores can run a separate and much more stable and higher clock frequency than the old ryzens.

These improvements relate to much higher multithreaded throughput. Also the single thread is 15 or more % higher between (1st/2nd) gen and 3rd gen.

I'm not sure what benches your referencing as your information but I absolutely assure you significant performance was achieved over the last 2 gens with 3rd gen Ryzen.

Also you get a really good, probably best on market, wraith Prism cooler with the 3700x when Intel doesnt give you squat.

Good luck in your search.

Absolutely spend the extra on the 3700x. If it's too much chip for you now, it wont be in 2 or 3 years of software advancement.
Click to expand...

ok. Some good stuff to chew on. Thanks.
The ONLY "game" I ever run on my PC is Microsoft Flight Simulator X.
With that in mind, I'm not sure how much more SIM I can squeeze out of it with a higher end CPU.

That said, I do a fair amount of CAD design and a BUNCH of photography related image manipulation.

I'm thinking a 2nd Gen Ryzen 7 2700X would exceed the capabilities of the SIM. But ....I'm not sure.

I'm also one of those who cringes over a lot of heat to deal with from the CPU.
 
Barometer said:
I think you may have over thought this question. It wasn't about any particular computer per se.....but overall.
I was specifically referring to Ryzen CPU's and readily available Benchmark results from programs such as CPU-Z...or online where they compare many CPU's and a variety of other hardware.

For example.....
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-7-2700X-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-1800X/3958vs3916

If you plug in all the various Ryzen 7 CPUS one by one, you will see that tens of thousands of users have submitted their Benchmarks that can be compared against tens of thousands of benchmarks of another CPU of similar equipment I believe.
What I found is that among the Ryzen 7 2nd Gen CPUS, going from 1600 to 3700x isn't that much of a difference.....according to tens of thousands of people that is.



Right. But why spend $400 on a CPU that only gives you a 1% performance increase over a $150 CPU, as reported by the Benchmarking software mentioned above?

Believe me...I'll buy the best CPU I can for my needs (which at this point leans towards a Gen 2 Ryzen 1800X or 2700X)....but I'd rather not go overboard on the spending if not really necessary.
Click to expand...
Those benches aren't controlled at all. All sorts of things can contribute to the score.

In a controlled environment to the difference between Zen and Zen2+ is around 20% across the board. For CPUs that's damn good.
 
kac77 said:
Those benches aren't controlled at all. All sorts of things can contribute to the score.
In a controlled environment to the difference between Zen and Zen2+ is around 20% across the board. For CPUs that's damn good.
Click to expand...

That may be. Still, lots of people at this forum use them.....what else is there?
 
Barometer said:
I think you may have over thought this question. It wasn't about any particular computer per se.....but overall.
I was specifically referring to Ryzen CPU's and readily available Benchmark results from programs such as CPU-Z...or online where they compare many CPU's and a variety of other hardware.

For example.....
https://cpu.loserbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-7-2700X-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-1800X/3958vs3916

If you plug in all the various Ryzen 7 CPUS one by one, you will see that tens of thousands of users have submitted their Benchmarks that can be compared against tens of thousands of benchmarks of another CPU of similar equipment I believe.
What I found is that among the Ryzen 7 2nd Gen CPUS, going from 1600 to 3700x isn't that much of a difference.....according to tens of thousands of people that is.



Right. But why spend $400 on a CPU that only gives you a 1% performance increase over a $150 CPU, as reported by the Benchmarking software melyied above?

Believe me...I'll buy the best CPU I can for my needs (which at this point leans towards a Gen 2 Ryzen 1800X or 2700X)....but I'd rather not go overboard on the spending if not really necessary.
Click to expand...
After what you wrote regarding the zero performance difference of 4 years of AMD cpus, I knew you would link loserbenchmark, the shill site that has an i3 faster than almost all the amd cpus. Use a better resource and don't feed that lying shithole clicks.
 
kac77 said:
Those benches aren't controlled at all. All sorts of things can contribute to the score.

In a controlled environment to the difference between Zen and Zen2+ is around 20% across the board. For CPUs that's damn good.
Click to expand...
They adjust the scores to push shintel. IIRC they have an advertising company which has partial intel ownership or some bs like that. Hence the ridiculous score massaging. It got bad after zen2 they basically gimped the multicore scores to keep the 9900k relevant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kac77
like this
https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_7_3800x_review,9.html

Here is direct IPC comparison between the chips. As you noted, 1800x and 2700x aren't to far apart, but 3800x is worlds better. You said you do some cad, so find benchmarks that support what you're workload is and see what the difference will be. As mentioned, userbench has very limited usefulness as they 'score' their CPU's very oddly and have changed the way they score every time AMD caught up or passed Intel as mentioned by others. Looking at your userbench comparison though, it still has the 2700x 7-8% faster than the 1800x, which isn't insignificant. I'm not sure where you got the 1% from.
According to the link I posted in Cinebench (don't rely on a single benchmark, if you know the software you typically use find those benchmarks to make a decision), the 3800x is 19% faster than the 2700x and 33% faster than the 1800x. 33% is not insignificant. Not everyone NEEDS the fastest stuff though, so spend what you're comfortable with. I still run a 1600 in my system and am happy with it. I would love to upgrade the CPU and probably will in this coming year, but there is nothing inherently wrong with older chips at cheap prices. This is how they move/clear old inventory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top