Zen 2 Review Summary

TheHig

Gawd
Joined
Apr 9, 2016
Messages
668
So much this. In most SFF cases, you will not be able to hit those 4.7ghz MCE speeds that are being used as the basis of 9900k performance in all of these reviews.

Now you are looking at 4.3-4.4 ghz speeds on the 9900k while the 3700c will still be able to hit those all core freqs of 4.2 ghz. At those speeds, the 3700x may very well match the 9900k in gaming while widening the gap for productivity.
Sounds like someone needs to see how well the 3700x does under the l9 noctua.

Just looking over everything and many of the great points brought up here--the 3700x seems to be a home run. I was more than happy with a 2600 in my SFF box. Really tempted to chuck a 3700x on to the Asrock B450 itx I already own to see how it fares.
 

mikeo

Gawd
Joined
May 17, 2006
Messages
622
The cool thing about minimal single threaded performance improvements (from Intel) over the years is that these high core count CPUs completely destroy intel on highly multithreaded things while still being competitive on single core workloads.

Looking forward to buying the next threadripper.
 
Last edited:

DuronBurgerMan

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
1,340
Certainly going full ryzen with 3900x and x570 motherboard is much more expensive all things considered.

3700x + x470 mobo will be cheaper but not really by all that much. It is not like it should make that of an massive difference.
3900X vs 9900k, the box price is the same, and the 3900X gives you a cooler. Motherboard prices are comparable - especially given that you don't have to buy an X570 board. You could go X470 with decent VRMs and save some scratch. So "much more expensive" doesn't follow. Same price or less, depending on if the box cooler satisfies you or not.

3700X + X470 is definitely cheaper than the 9900k - on the order of $200 + price of cooler. It's cheaper than the 9700k too. That $200 could bump you up a GPU level or two in your build, giving a much better return on your investment even from a gaming perspective.
 

DuronBurgerMan

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
1,340
The 9900k really only makes sense for a high budget (or money is no object) pure gaming rig where the GPU is already maxed out.

Most other budget tiers, except the ultra low end (which has its own calculus), would be better served with Zen 2 (or an older 8700k in some cases). Also, high budget/money is no object builds that are mixed use are also better served with Zen 2, though some of those folks may wish to wait for the 3950X or consider HEDT options in Intel, or Threadripper, depending on use case.
 

cyklondx

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
419
3900X vs 9900k, the box price is the same, and the 3900X gives you a cooler. Motherboard prices are comparable - especially given that you don't have to buy an X570 board. You could go X470 with decent VRMs and save some scratch. So "much more expensive" doesn't follow. Same price or less, depending on if the box cooler satisfies you or not.

3700X + X470 is definitely cheaper than the 9900k - on the order of $200 + price of cooler. It's cheaper than the 9700k too. That $200 could bump you up a GPU level or two in your build, giving a much better return on your investment even from a gaming perspective.
The x570 additionally gives you pci-e 4.0 and more lanes. It has some return value vs intel 9900KFC that only comes in with bucket of hot chicken.
intel-core-i9-9900kfc.jpg
 

DuronBurgerMan

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
1,340
The x570 additionally gives you pci-e 4.0 and more lanes. It has some return value vs intel 9900KFC that only comes in with bucket of hot chicken.
Eh, PCI Express 4.0 is kind of gimmicky, atm. I don't really put much value in it - certainly not as much as AMD's Marketing Department does.
 

cyklondx

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
419
Eh, PCI Express 4.0 is kind of gimmicky, atm. I don't really put much value in it - certainly not as much as AMD's Marketing Department does.
while ppl think GPU's i think 2x (4x nvme on pci-e x8 4.0) = ~32GB/s


imagine 2 of them on zfs
DdlqtCC.png


running your kvm's from it. Forget running it from memory, no point anymore.
 
Last edited:

Opus131

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 29, 2016
Messages
195
I think AMD needs to lower the price on the 3600. It doesn't square up with the intel counterpart as well as the 3700x or 3800x, in terms of price/performance.

Prices where i live, i5-9600k:

250 euro +cooler
150 motherboard
100 euro memory (could be more, could be less)

3600:

250 for the x version, can use stock cooler.
100 for a B450 board, more or less.
100 memory, 150 if you want Samsung B-die cl14 etc.

And between the two, intel is still faster in games and even more so if OC. Not seeing the "value" here. The 2600 is actually more appetizing considering how cheap it is.
 
Last edited:

cyklondx

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
419
with the cooler intel gives you you will be happy not to burn the house down.
forget oc, its likely you will dc
 

OrangeKhrush

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
1,622
The 9900k really only makes sense for a high budget (or money is no object) pure gaming rig where the GPU is already maxed out.

Most other budget tiers, except the ultra low end (which has its own calculus), would be better served with Zen 2 (or an older 8700k in some cases). Also, high budget/money is no object builds that are mixed use are also better served with Zen 2, though some of those folks may wish to wait for the 3950X or consider HEDT options in Intel, or Threadripper, depending on use case.

The 9900K makes no sense anytime, the 9700K does but it is going to have shortages as people realise the little benefit you get for a 9900K in "gaming" only builds. The 9900KS is on a hiding to nothing as being one of the most unnecessary and pointless CPU's ever to be made. Intel are well aware that the 9700K is the preferable option, they will find a way to not drop it's price and make its production slower as they need to sell the very expensive 9900 family. The 9600kkkk...k (stutter) is good for budget gamers and the 9400F is good for absolute budget usage scenarios but the options on Intels side are just boring.
 

XoR_

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 18, 2016
Messages
1,045
Don't mean to be rude, but that is dumb. At the very least, Intel may be dropping prices soon, so you can benefit that way. If there's a major CPU/GPU release very soon from the point you are considering buying, it's usually prudent to wait no matter which brand/product you are most interested in.
I would need to wait for price drop which is at this point purely hypothetical.
And what price drop are even expecting? 50 bucks?

I would not be too surprised if they did not do any price drop at all
 

OrangeKhrush

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
1,622
with the cooler intel gives you you will be happy not to burn the house down.
forget oc, its likely you will dc
I remember when i needed my 4770K replaced and they didn't have any they up'ed it to a 4790K that came with a stock cooler with a copper block, that thing was utterly useless
 

OrangeKhrush

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
1,622
Eh, PCI Express 4.0 is kind of gimmicky, atm. I don't really put much value in it - certainly not as much as AMD's Marketing Department does.
THe 570 has little value right now, PCI e 4 has next to no adaptation yet and a 470/450 board delivers exactly the same performance not related to PCI e 4 storage performance. I agree it is a bad gimmick for something that will not see a graphics card until next year and by then AMD has a Ryzen 2 + update and 600 family board.
 

DuronBurgerMan

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
1,340
I would need to wait for price drop which is at this point purely hypothetical.
And what price drop are even expecting? 50 bucks?

I would not be too surprised if they did not do any price drop at all
Maybe, maybe not. You don't have this information prior to a major release. Your claim was that you should have bought the 9900k right away, and not waited for Zen 2 reviews. That is dumb unless money doesn't matter to you (in which case please feel free to donate to the rest of us), and you are very sure your favored product will outperform the new one.
 

RamonGTP

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
8,089
With that use case definitely 3900x will be better choice of the two

maybe even wait for 3950x?
I would, just don't want to wait another 2+ months. Been anxious to start this new build for a while now. I may sell the 3900x and upgrade to a 3950x when it's released. I know i'll probably take a couple hundred dollar loss if I do. Time will tell if it'll be worth it.
 

bigblueshock

Weaksauce
Joined
Oct 27, 2017
Messages
78
THe 570 has little value right now, PCI e 4 has next to no adaptation yet and a 470/450 board delivers exactly the same performance not related to PCI e 4 storage performance. I agree it is a bad gimmick for something that will not see a graphics card until next year and by then AMD has a Ryzen 2 + update and 600 family board.
I initially thought the same thing. For the Ryzen 3000 series, the only reason I'm looking at the x570 over the older boards are turnaround time with the AGESA / BIOS updates. Yes, you can pop in a Ryzen 3000 chip into an older mobo, but who knows what type of priority mobo manufacturers will give the older boards. (especially with tweaks / updates that will probably be coming out within the coming weeks)

It would be nice if you could manually inject / tweak BIOS Microcode updates kind of like you're able to with Intel chips.
 

DuronBurgerMan

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
1,340
Thought about waiting for the 3950X, but you'll note that the 3950X has reduced base clock values vs. the 3900X, plus it's more expensive. I think the 3900X is the sweet spot for me. It also assuages my buyer's remorse that, back when I originally built this rig, I didn't go Threadripper (because it wasn't out at the time).
 

bpizzle1

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 27, 2007
Messages
4,172
THe 570 has little value right now, PCI e 4 has next to no adaptation yet and a 470/450 board delivers exactly the same performance not related to PCI e 4 storage performance. I agree it is a bad gimmick for something that will not see a graphics card until next year and by then AMD has a Ryzen 2 + update and 600 family board.
After reading about how obnoxious some of the tiny fans on x570 boards are, I don't even think a good 470 board is probably the best option unless you really just have to have the newest thing.
 

cyklondx

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
419
Thought about waiting for the 3950X, but you'll note that the 3950X has reduced base clock values vs. the 3900X, plus it's more expensive. I think the 3900X is the sweet spot for me. It also assuages my buyer's remorse that, back when I originally built this rig, I didn't go Threadripper (because it wasn't out at the time).
I'm quite torn between 3700x and 3900x. $500 for a cpu is a lot (even tho i earn decent wage), but the 12 cores also gives me a hard-on. I guess i'll be creeping for few weeks trying to decide what to get for my x470 board.
 

Nightfire

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 7, 2017
Messages
2,655
while ppl think GPU's i think 2x (4x nvme on pci-e x8 4.0) = ~32GB/s


imagine 2 of them on zfs
View attachment 172668

running your kvm's from it. Forget running it from memory, no point anymore.
I'm sorry but a faster crystaldisk score for you nvme that will never be noticed in the real world is NOT a reason to drop the extra dough on the x570. For those that want to someday run dual RTX 3080ti cards, then get the x570. For ALL others, the x470 (edit) will be more than enough.
 
Last edited:

wizzi01

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
2,680
I'm sorry but a faster crystaldisk score for you nvme that will never be noticed in the real world is NOT a reason to drop the extra dough on the x570. For those that want to someday run dual RTX 3080ti cards, then get the x570. For ALL others, the x570 will be more than enough.
I'm sure you meant x470, right?
 

HockeyJon

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 14, 2014
Messages
1,257
Did anyone see if any review indicated the Wraith Prism limiting performance based on thermals? I did see one review where it had like a 15 degree delta vs AIO, but I haven’t seen anyone compare performance and if it would make a difference to the stock turbo performance to go with AIO or a stronger air cooler vs Wraith Prism.
 

NKD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
8,051
Overall the Ryzen 3000 series is rather impressive, though the gaming and single threaded performance could still use more work. Other than that the 3900x pretty much crushed the i9 9990k but its a rather unfair comparison because the 3900x is a 12 core 24 thread CPU.


Bit disappointed with the limited overclocking though, AMD CPU's were never that great at overclocking from what I've seen. Hopefully future BIOS revisions will address this issue.
If 3900x can do 4.3-4.5 as lot of reviews have suggested. It is damn good for 12 cores.

I got mine today and hopefully will be putting it together if wife doesn’t go in to labor lol. Otherwise family first. It’s gonna have to wait. Pairing it up with crosshair hero VIII and thermaltake RGB 360 AIO. Just swapping mobo cpu and memory.

Also check out fpsreview, they had clock for clock IPC comparison at 4.2ghz. 3900x beat the 9900k in all benches but 1 I think.
 

NKD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
8,051
Eh, PCI Express 4.0 is kind of gimmicky, atm. I don't really put much value in it - certainly not as much as AMD's Marketing Department does.
It’s no gimmick for actual purpose of storage. Monster gains with PCIe-4 nvme drives. So yea it has its purpose for those who need that.
 

1_rick

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 7, 2017
Messages
1,330
yeah been watching bearded hardwares overclocking stream vod, he got his 3700x down to 1.25v @ 4.3Ghz all core so it's possible the board manufactures over compensated on default voltages. wouldn't be surprised if we see some bios updates fixing the default voltage.
Well, dang.
 

cybereality

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
6,154
I ended up getting a 3600X. Guess I could have went bigger, but that seems like a decent sweet-spot and I don't need my second computer to be a powerhouse (I'm replacing a 1600X).
 

Vengance_01

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 23, 2001
Messages
6,189
I think AMD needs to lower the price on the 3600. It doesn't square up with the intel counterpart as well as the 3700x or 3800x, in terms of price/performance.

Prices where i live, i5-9600k:

250 euro +cooler
150 motherboard
100 euro memory (could be more, could be less)

3600:

250 for the x version, can use stock cooler.
100 for a B450 board, more or less.
100 memory, 150 if you want Samsung B-die cl14 etc.

And between the two, intel is still faster in games and even more so if OC. Not seeing the "value" here. The 2600 is actually more appetizing considering how cheap it is.
no HT on the I5 9600K which will hurt it as game designers continue to use more threads
 

Vengance_01

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 23, 2001
Messages
6,189
I ended up getting a 3600X. Guess I could have went bigger, but that seems like a decent sweet-spot and I don't need my second computer to be a powerhouse (I'm replacing a 1600X).
3600 is the better deal IMO unless you need the cooler.
 

cyklondx

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
419
I'm sorry but a faster crystaldisk score for you nvme that will never be noticed in the real world is NOT a reason to drop the extra dough on the x570. For those that want to someday run dual RTX 3080ti cards, then get the x570. For ALL others, the x570 will be more than enough.

It will be noticed when I run my kvm's with win10 to play any game, and it loads in 0.2sec, while a peasant will load for ~30sec.
 

Nightfire

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 7, 2017
Messages
2,655
no HT on the I5 9600K which will hurt it as game designers continue to use more threads
Yeah, getting a 6 threaded cpu now seems a bit risky even if it is "just for gaming." I would imagine at some point you would want to sell or upgrade this in the future as well. That seems alot easier with a 3600/AM4 combo than a 9600k/1151?v3 combo.
 

VIC-20

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 24, 2006
Messages
1,050
Whats with all the comments about AMD being cheaper?
In Canada the bundles for a 3900X and board are $1360 to $1600 on Newegg. X570 boards are $100 to $150 more than an equivalent Intel board in terms of VRM / build quality.
Intel you can buy cheap 2666 RAM, AMD recommended is DDR4 3600, which costs 60% more.

These new CPUs are great (so is pci-e 4), but can we stop lying about cost savings?
 

Vengance_01

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 23, 2001
Messages
6,189
Whats with all the comments about AMD being cheaper?
In Canada the bundles for a 3900X and board are $1360 to $1600 on Newegg. X570 boards are $100 to $150 more than an equivalent Intel board in terms of VRM / build quality.
Intel you can buy cheap 2666 RAM, AMD recommended is DDR4 3600, which costs 60% more.

These new CPUs are great (so is pci-e 4), but can we stop lying about cost savings?
B450 or X470 is all you need. You don't need expensive ram. Also Who buys brand new setups with Intel and use slower 2666 ram... Plenty of solid options for both sides. And you really need to set up to an I7 vs 3600 to be fair for HT enabled vs I5 is not. Look you can spin this no matter which way for either side. Just glad AMD is competitive again. Are we all forgetting what Intel did during Netburst era which AMD was dominating. Then Came the Core architecture... This only comes with competition...
 

XoR_

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 18, 2016
Messages
1,045
Whats with all the comments about AMD being cheaper?
In Canada the bundles for a 3900X and board are $1360 to $1600 on Newegg. X570 boards are $100 to $150 more than an equivalent Intel board in terms of VRM / build quality.
Intel you can buy cheap 2666 RAM, AMD recommended is DDR4 3600, which costs 60% more.

These new CPUs are great (so is pci-e 4), but can we stop lying about cost savings?
3700X and X470 board can be had cheaper than eg. 9900K and Z390 board and both will offer similar functionality and performance.
This price difference is there but it is not as high as people reactions might suggest.

Zen2 is most attractive for current Zen1/1+ owners. I suspect second hand market to be flooded with cheap Ryzen 1000/2000 in 1... 2... 3...
 

XoR_

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 18, 2016
Messages
1,045
B450 or X470 is all you need. You don't need expensive ram. Also Who buys brand new setups with Intel and use slower 2666 ram... Plenty of solid options for both sides. And you really need to set up to an I7 vs 3600 to be fair for HT enabled vs I5 is not. Look you can spin this no matter which way for either side. Just glad AMD is competitive again. Are we all forgetting what Intel did during Netburst era which AMD was dominating. Then Came the Core architecture... This only comes with competition...
2666MHz ram and Intel. Yeah, this is LOL, especially since anyone getting Intel instead of Zen did so most likely for games and got fast ram, even >4000MHz
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
56,615
Whats with all the comments about AMD being cheaper?
In Canada the bundles for a 3900X and board are $1360 to $1600 on Newegg. X570 boards are $100 to $150 more than an equivalent Intel board in terms of VRM / build quality.
Intel you can buy cheap 2666 RAM, AMD recommended is DDR4 3600, which costs 60% more.

These new CPUs are great (so is pci-e 4), but can we stop lying about cost savings?
The RAM is a non-issue. That's not on AMD. You can use cheap DDR4 2133MHz RAM with a Ryzen setup if you wanted to. AMD recommends better and faster memory because it can handle it and it yields better performance. I agree with you on the motherboards. AMD's X570 motherboards can be $100-$200 more than an equivalent Intel Z390 motherboard at this point. Potentially more even. The MSI MEG X570 GODLIKE I tested with has a retail price of $699.99. :eek: Gratned, its somewhat of an outlier, but it helps to illustrate the difference. I can't recall seeing any Z390 board break $500 or $550. The CPU's on the AMD side are priced roughly what they are for Intel.

If anything, cost between the two platforms has virtually achieved parity. You don't have to buy a more expensive AMD board. You can go with an X470 or cheaper X570 offering. They do exist. How good they are is another topic all together.
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
56,615
B450 or X470 is all you need. You don't need expensive ram. Also Who buys brand new setups with Intel and use slower 2666 ram... Plenty of solid options for both sides. And you really need to set up to an I7 vs 3600 to be fair for HT enabled vs I5 is not. Look you can spin this no matter which way for either side. Just glad AMD is competitive again. Are we all forgetting what Intel did during Netburst era which AMD was dominating. Then Came the Core architecture... This only comes with competition...
AMD caused Intel to take drastic action. Unfortunately, it never counted on the response. AMD needs to keep this momentum going because Intel will come back at them very hard sooner or later.
 

VIC-20

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 24, 2006
Messages
1,050
The RAM is a non-issue. That's not on AMD. You can use cheap DDR4 2133MHz RAM with a Ryzen setup if you wanted to. AMD recommends better and faster memory because it can handle it and it yields better performance. I agree with you on the motherboards. AMD's X570 motherboards can be $100-$200 more than an equivalent Intel Z390 motherboard at this point. Potentially more even. The MSI MEG X570 GODLIKE I tested with has a retail price of $699.99. :eek: Gratned, its somewhat of an outlier, but it helps to illustrate the difference. I can't recall seeing any Z390 board break $500 or $550. The CPU's on the AMD side are priced roughly what they are for Intel.

If anything, cost between the two platforms has virtually achieved parity. You don't have to buy a more expensive AMD board. You can go with an X470 or cheaper X570 offering. They do exist. How good they are is another topic all together.
2666MHz is spec from Intel, and it is optimal. Just because you can spend up to 4X times more to get 5% doesn't make it necessary. Intel RAM scaling has sucked for years.

Optimal Zen performance requires faster RAM, hence the discrepancy. 3600 is recommended sweet spot on these new AMDs for optimal performance and that is more expensive. Even if you buy the cheapest 3600.

Other than that, you just said the same thing I did. Platform price for equivalent quality and performance is basically the same. But I see so many comments on how much cheaper AMD is. Its not.

But maybe Intel will take some older Coffee lake parts and start a price war. Just like they did with Pentium D when X2 ate their lunch. That would be awesome
 
Joined
Sep 15, 2017
Messages
169
There are quite some differences in the reviews.

Shadow of Tomb Raider is a game many benched, allegedly all stock 9900k vs 3900x at 1080p.

  • Gamers Nexus - 9900k 18% faster
  • Techspot - 9900k 17% faster
  • Dan (FPS) - 9900k 16% faster
  • Guru3d - 9900k 8% faster
  • PC Lab - 9900k 4% faster
  • PC Perspective - equal
  • TPU - 3900x 2% faster
  • Computer Base - 3900x 2% faster
That's a 20% spread, not typical, could it be the memory setup?
 
Top