• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

German Site Jumps the Gun on Ryzen 3000 Benchmarks

Zarathustra[H]

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
41,041
If you ask me, this is pretty much what I expected.

Pretty much what I expected. Trading blows depending on the title, trailing slightly in the games which are more highly dependent on a single fast thread, but in every case fast enough that you are probably going to be GPU limited before you are CPU limited at typical settings.

I haven't played Far Cry 5, but from my experience with other Far Cry games, the Dunia engine (modified Crytek engine for open worlds) they use always pins the third core, so it is not surprising at all yo me that it may be a worst case title for Ryzen.

I for one am looking forward to getting a 3950x and overclocking the snot out of it.

Credit for finding the link goes to LstOfTheBrunnenG
 
Last edited:
Moved this to the news thread if you don't mind.

elite.mafia said:
I also find it strange they are doing 720 resolution testing. Literally nobody games at that resolution...
Click to expand...

It is on purpose. This is always how CPU benchmarks are done.

In every title I've ever tested, at a fixed framerate, changing resolution/graphics settings has no impact on CPU load. Because of this it makes sense to run it at the absolute minimum resolution/graphics settings so that your benchmark figures are not GPU limited.

It is a CPU review, not a full system review, so this way you can see what the CPU is capable of independent of the GPU.

You - of course - have to read these charts with a little intelligence, and realize that depending on your GPU chances are in real world gameplay, you'll never see those framerates due to being GPU limited, and realize that this means that due to GPU limitations many of the top performing CPU's will perform identically in normal use.

It involves a risk that people misinterpret the results, but I don't see how else they could do it and still get to the actual performance of the CPU.
 
What's with Crysis 3 causing 3900x to suck so much powah
 
Apparently they didn't actually retest any of their old CPU tests, and since all the security mitigations are apparently included in the latest version of windows... it seems as though the intel chips probably don't do as well as suggested here... I guess we'll have to wait and see what other sites show up with.
 
elite.mafia said:
Apparently they didn't actually retest any of their old CPU tests, and since all the security mitigations are apparently included in the latest version of windows... it seems as though the intel chips probably don't do as well as suggested here... I guess we'll have to wait and see what other sites show up with.
Click to expand...

This could very well be. I'm hoping the good folks over at thefpsreview.com have samples and are doing this retesting with all the latest patches in place.
 
elite.mafia said:
I looked a little further at this, they didn't actually test the intel cpu's on latest windows updates, so this is a bit of a misleading review I think, if all the mitigations are in the new windows update then they should be tested as such.
Click to expand...

How did you find this? I thoght only the images from that German site were captured. Not the body of the article and any test methodology?
 
Moving to news post:

elite.mafia said:
da fuk
so far leaks have been literally all over the place, from the 3600 beating the 9900k in gaming, to this shit... I don't buy it until I start seeing actual reviews...
Click to expand...

It probably depends very much on which titles you benchmark it in. It's a different architecture than Intels, so we wouldn't expect it to scale linearly in every title. IN some it will do better, in some it will do worse. Far Cry 5 is probably a worst case due to the Dunia engine always seeming to want to pin the third core on every system it runs on.
 
Almost same performance and lower power consumption - pretty impressive for a fraction of the R&D and a less 'mature process'.
But of course power consumption only matters when it's AMD, because 5,000MW for 2% faster in some games is so [H].

Either way interesting to see minimums are very good if it isn't top of a game benchmark. Wonder if more optimization can help there.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Moving to news post:



It probably depends very much on which titles you benchmark it in. It's a different architecture than Intels, so we wouldn't expect it to scale linearly in every title. IN some it will do better, in some it will do worse. Far Cry 5 is probably a worst case due to the Dunia engine always seeming to want to pin the third core on every system it runs on.
Click to expand...

The whole article is here:
 
elite.mafia said:
Apparently they didn't actually retest any of their old CPU tests, and since all the security mitigations are apparently included in the latest version of windows... it seems as though the intel chips probably don't do as well as suggested here... I guess we'll have to wait and see what other sites show up with.
Click to expand...
AMD benchmarks were the same so people couldn't bitch about that. With patches it will be very interesting to see if any gains are made by AMD, also latest win10 release gave quite a few Zen users a boost in some titles.

IDFrga salt harvest is forecast to be 50% over last quarter!
01_photo.jpg
 
N4CR said:
Either way interesting to see minimums are very good if it isn't top of a game benchmark. Wonder if more optimization can help there.
Click to expand...

This is part of the problem with not knowing their methods and test details.

If I recall, Win 10 1903 supposedly brings a bunch of Ryzen 3000 specific scheduling enhancements. No way of knowing if they used 1903 or not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this
These are good results, though not as impressive as what the Spanish site leaked earlier. I'll certainly be eager to read the full reviews on Sunday/Monday. I do find it interesting the listed Cinebench single thread score - no appreciable difference between the 3700X and the i9-9900K!
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this
Also I'd love to see overclocked results, as that's all that really matters to me anyways as I'm not gonna be running stock ever.
 
elite.mafia said:
Also I'd love to see overclocked results, as that's all that really matters to me anyways as I'm not gonna be running stock ever.
Click to expand...

Ditto. Other than a baseline stability test, once I get mine, I'm not even going to bother running anything until I have it at the max overclock my water loop can support.
 
The Lurker said:
Adjusted for me.

The ryzen 5 3600 will literally have twice the performance of the 3770k in the laptop I have been using the last 8 years.
Click to expand...

I usually like doing a stability test with everything stock before I start overclocking just so I know I have a properly functioning system.
 
Last edited:
I'll wait until all the reviews are out. Leaks always smell like covert marketing.
 
N4CR said:
Almost same performance and lower power consumption - pretty impressive for a fraction of the R&D and a less 'mature process'.
But of course power consumption only matters when it's AMD, because 5,000MW for 2% faster in some games is so [H].

Either way interesting to see minimums are very good if it isn't top of a game benchmark. Wonder if more optimization can help there.
Click to expand...


Ya power consumption only matters for gpu's :p
 
So i can't tell if this is good or not? The 9700k is $329 at micro-center the 3700k is $329.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
This is part of the problem with not knowing their methods and test details.

If I recall, Win 10 1903 supposedly brings a bunch of Ryzen 3000 specific scheduling enhancements. No way of knowing if they used 1903 or not.
Click to expand...


According to the interview with Robert Hallock, 1903 fixed the CCX scheduling issues where windows would assign a thread to one CCX and the other to the second CCX despite the first one have idle cores.

This results in a small to very large penalty (as seen with 32c64t TR with Windows vs Linux).

The 1903 fix applies to every Ryzeb release. Will it help Zen2 SKUs more? Possibly. I'm sure AMD worked hard with MS to clean up their mess.
 
  • Like
Reactions: c3k
like this
ccityinstaller said:
According to the interview with Robert Hallock, 1903 fixed the CCX scheduling issues where windows would assign a thread to one CCX and the other to the second CCX despite the first one have idle cores.

This results in a small to very large penalty (as seen with 32c64t TR with Windows vs Linux).

The 1903 fix applies to every Ryzeb release. Will it help Zen2 SKUs more? Possibly. I'm sure AMD worked hard with MS to clean up their mess.
Click to expand...


If these leaks are accurate, I am very impressed. Wish we would have seen a 3800X in there as well so even with OC data we would see what the chip would do with the extra TDP.

I think I'm going to save $70 and rolll the dice on the 3700. Still unsure. Thinking of grabbing a Navi 50th as well to see how it does and maybe replace my VII or just keep both.
 
ccityinstaller said:
If these leaks are accurate, I am very impressed. Wish we would have seen a 3800X in there as well so even with OC data we would see what the chip would do with the extra TDP.

I think I'm going to save $70 and rolll the dice on the 3700. Still unsure. Thinking of grabbing a Navi 50th as well to see how it does and maybe replace my VII or just keep both.
Click to expand...
well the VII is definitely going to be much better than the 5700xt so that'd be a definite downgrade
 
Master_shake_ said:
View attachment 172085

and then this happened.

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html

RIP Intel
Click to expand...
The updated (as of 7/5) chart makes no sense. An i9-9900 @ 3.1Ghz scoring higher than an i9-9900K @ 3.6GHz? Certainly not the only oddity that stands out with that list. Is this a list of golden runs? Are the contributions from random sources?

Also worth noting are the clocks of Ryzen 3000 series are not specified. Kind of important given the context of the benchmark.
 
Absalom said:
The updated (as of 7/5) chart makes no sense. An i9-9900 @ 3.1Ghz scoring higher than an i9-9900K @ 3.6GHz? Certainly not the only oddity that stands out with that list. Is this a list of golden runs? Are the contributions from random sources?

Also worth noting are the clocks of Ryzen 3000 series are not specified. Kind of important given the context of the benchmark.
Click to expand...
yeah I don't really trust passmark or any of those sites that show up when you search X CPU vs Y CPU on google...
 
Absalom said:
The updated (as of 7/5) chart makes no sense. An i9-9900 @ 3.1Ghz scoring higher than an i9-9900K @ 3.6GHz? Certainly not the only oddity that stands out with that list. Is this a list of golden runs? Are the contributions from random sources?

Also worth noting are the clocks of Ryzen 3000 series are not specified. Kind of important given the context of the benchmark.
Click to expand...

the i7 9900 can turbo up to 5ghz and it's single threaded and it's margin of error when you consider both the 9900k and 9900 have the same boost clocks.

care to wager what the i7 9900kf boosts to?
 
Master_shake_ said:
the i7 9900 can turbo up to 5ghz and it's single threaded and it's margin of error when you consider both the 9900k and 9900 have the same boost clocks.

care to wager what the i7 9900kf boosts to?
Click to expand...
If clock boosts are dictated by uncontrollable variables such as temperature, power, and the almighty golden run, then I'll pass on whatever number marketing cooks up.

Also, if that represents margin of error, then all those at the top of the list are effectively equal.
 
Absalom said:
If clock boosts are dictated by uncontrollable variables such as temperature, power, and the almighty golden run, then I'll pass on whatever number marketing cooks up.

Also, if that represents margin of error, then all those at the top of the list are effectively equal.
Click to expand...

i'm sure that's great news for intel that it's upper echelon 9900k with the 500 dollar price tag is equal to AMD's mid line 199 cpu in single threaded benchmarks.
 
Private_Ops said:
These threads always turn into salt mines because people can't stand that AMD has finally caught up.

I for one welcome our new AMD overlords.
Click to expand...

I am happy AMD caught up, will likely buy a 12 or 16 core Ryzen but I still find AMD has more nuances.

Given Intel has random security issues that drop performance, I suppose I’ll stick with AMD....
 
As always, take early reviews with a grain of salt unless you explicit trust the source. We don't know how rushed this review is or what, if any, verification was done on these benches to make sure they are accurate.
 
Master_shake_ said:
i'm sure that's great news for intel that it's upper echelon 9900k with the 500 dollar price tag is equal to AMD's mid line 199 cpu in single threaded benchmarks.
Click to expand...
Based on your recommendation, I'll be sure my next purchasing decision is based purely on Passmark.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top