• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Discussion Ryzen 3000 series benchmark thread ** Open **

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Abwx

Diamond Member
Apr 2, 2011
9,114
894
126
According to this in CB R20 Multi , the 3700X has almost the same performance vs the Core i7 9900X at half the power and $200 cheaper.
And it is slightly ahead in Cinebench R15....

https://www.computerbase.de/2019-07/amd-ryzen-3000-test/3/#diagramm-test-cinebench-r15-multi

Since the total scores in MT are on par we can confidently assume that Zen 2 MT IPC is somewhat better than CFL s, by something like 10%..

According to the link below the improvement vs Zen + perf/clock wise is 14% in ST and 16% in MT at equal 2933 RAM settings, faster RAM will provide 1% more in MT, wich is marginal...

https://www.computerbase.de/2019-07/amd-ryzen-3000-test/#diagramm-performancerating-anwendungen-multi-core_3
 

Paul98

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2010
3,688
122
106
Any reviews show processor clock speed while doing those gaming benchmarks?
 

guachi

Senior member
Nov 16, 2010
753
406
136
https://techreport.com/review/34672/amd-ryzen-7-3700x-and-ryzen-9-3900x-cpus-reviewed/10

TechReport tested 5 games using a 1080Ti. Settings appear to be 1080 ultra/very high.

CPUs in the test: 3700X, 3900X, 2920X, 2700X, 1800X, 9900K, 8700K, 7900X.

3700X/3900X were 88% as fast as the 9900K for about 67% and 102% of the 9900K (less if you don't buy an aftermarket cooler for the AMDs).

The 3700X just edged the 8700K for fps/$ winning 2/5 tests (so their wins were bigger than their losses)

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ryzen-9-3900x-7-3700x-review,6214-7.html

Toms Hardware tested 9 games at 1080 ultra/max with a 2080Ti.

CPUs included in the test: 3900X, 3700X, 2920X, 2700X, 1800X, 9900K, 9700K, 7920X.

The 3700X/3900X were 93% as fast as the 9900K.

The 3700X won fps/$ winning in every game.
 

guachi

Senior member
Nov 16, 2010
753
406
136
Any reviews show processor clock speed while doing those gaming benchmarks?
The Gamers Nexus review of the 3600 does.

https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3489-amd-ryzen-5-3600-cpu-review-benchmarks-vs-intel

The 3600 is the only Ryzen 3000 CPU in their gaming benchmarks.

At 1080 the 3600 was 85% as fast as the 9900K. Normalized scores below:

9900K 100.0
9700K 98.9
8700K 89.7
9600K 87.9
3600 84.7
7700K 82.7
2700X 77.9
7600K 72.0
2600 71.3
1700 64.6
1600 63.7

The 3600 is 96% as fast as the 9600K for 75%. of the price. And it stomps it in productivity.
 

IntelUser2000

Elite Member
Oct 14, 2003
7,172
1,741
136
Yes, the OC potential/voltages required are a reality check for the more optimistic folks. Getting big clock speed increases on a new node is harder than ever.
This has little to do with process, but that the CPUs are way past the optimal frequency.

The side-effect(or advantage) of Intel being on 14nm and Skylake for so long is that Intel engineers were allowed to characterize the product for far longer than they have, or anyone else has been able to do in the past.

Before, at least the uarch or the process had to change every year. A year is a very short time in the development process. After taking out a few months to allow for inventory to build up, and coordinate with OEMs, you might have 6-7 months to launch the product. And all this time is spent on validation and finalizing the chip.

For 3 years, they kept squeezing out everything from the silicon every year. They said since 4790K that it can overclock to 5GHz, and it took 3 more chips to actually reach that(4790K, 6700K, 7700K, Coffeelake). Each time raising the ceiling by 100-200MHz.

5GHz is the frequency where you start making real sacrifices to get there because its a barrier. There was a speculation by Hiroshige Goto at PCWatch that Skylake may have been redesigned for higher frequencies. The intercore latency, the L2 and L3 latencies and bandwidth could all have been better if they aimed for lower frequencies, or had a replacement for Skylake arrived in 2016.
 
Last edited:

moonbogg

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2011
9,882
1,507
126
These can't even beat an i5 9600K in gaming, and that's before overclocking. They OC like crap and need 1.4v to hit 4.3. Same old story as before. As soon as Intel gets their new node up and running, AMD will be right back in the moar cores bargain bin. I didn't want this to happen. I wanted AMD to run over Intel like a truck. No use in lying about the way I feel regarding these new CPUs. I wouldn't buy them for anything but maybe a dedicated video encoding rig or something and we already had threadripper for that, so...DOA IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rusina

IntelUser2000

Elite Member
Oct 14, 2003
7,172
1,741
136
Same old story as before. As soon as Intel gets their new node up and running, AMD will be right back in the moar cores bargain bin.
5-10% deficiency at lower resolutions against the top of the 9900K at lower prices is a win. And that's only because 9900K is at an impractical frequency which their future chips might never reach it.

Yes, it would have been better if they could clock at 5GHz and have 16 cores using 95W for real with perf/clock of Sunny Cove cores, but come on.

Or that if Intel didn't decide to go bonkers on density and targeted 10nm in a realistic way, so we got 10nm 3 years earlier.

Who says that Intel could have ever reached 5GHz had they not failed on transition to the 10nm process? 5GHz had been a domain exclusive to water or more exotic cooling solutions(it still is, because CFL can clock 200-300MHz more before needing them), and only by reiterating on the same chip they were eventually able to get to that level, also killing overclocking in the process.
 

tamz_msc

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2017
2,679
2,355
106
These can't even beat an i5 9600K in gaming, and that's before overclocking. They OC like crap and need 1.4v to hit 4.3. Same old story as before. As soon as Intel gets their new node up and running, AMD will be right back in the moar cores bargain bin. I didn't want this to happen. I wanted AMD to run over Intel like a truck. No use in lying about the way I feel regarding these new CPUs. I wouldn't buy them for anything but maybe a dedicated video encoding rig or something and we already had threadripper for that, so...DOA IMO.
Given what was revealed at Computex, namely reaching parity with Intel in terms of IPC, and with the usual caveats of clock speeds being comparatively lower and memory latency being worse, I don't know why anyone would even consider that AMD could beat, let alone match Intel in gaming.

However it's surely hyperbole to say that they're DOA for gaming - a 3600X keeps up quite well with an 8700K at stock settings.
 

Asterox

Senior member
May 15, 2012
389
469
136
These can't even beat an i5 9600K in gaming, and that's before overclocking. They OC like crap and need 1.4v to hit 4.3. Same old story as before. As soon as Intel gets their new node up and running, AMD will be right back in the moar cores bargain bin. I didn't want this to happen. I wanted AMD to run over Intel like a truck. No use in lying about the way I feel regarding these new CPUs. I wouldn't buy them for anything but maybe a dedicated video encoding rig or something and we already had threadripper for that, so...DOA IMO.
Do you now that 95% of people dont overclock CPU-s?

As far Intel future 7nm or lower nm, you will never ever see a 5ghz day to day use overclocked Desktop CPU.Intel 10nm is dead for Desktop high performance CPU, or you just wait and see what will come with future Intel 7nm.Same goes for AMD, IPC will be little higher but CPU clock will be about the same.

CPU future will be very different , compared to what you want or 5 % hard overclockers.

 

ubern00b

Member
Jun 11, 2019
171
75
56
These can't even beat an i5 9600K in gaming, and that's before overclocking. They OC like crap and need 1.4v to hit 4.3. Same old story as before. As soon as Intel gets their new node up and running, AMD will be right back in the moar cores bargain bin. I didn't want this to happen. I wanted AMD to run over Intel like a truck. No use in lying about the way I feel regarding these new CPUs. I wouldn't buy them for anything but maybe a dedicated video encoding rig or something and we already had threadripper for that, so...DOA IMO.
Are you deliberately trolling or being sarcastic? not sure but hey since you're so smart, do you know how much faster a 9700k or 9900k is in gaming compared to a 9600k? it's 3% and 5%, the 3900x is at 100% with the 9600k, this bearing in mind is at 1080p, move up to 1440p and that difference is 2.5% between the CPU's mentioned, move up again to 4k and there is 0 difference, not too mention it hands the 9600, 9700 and 9900k their respective asses in most things outside of gaming but hey, why let the truth get in the way of a good troll post?
 

kastriot

Member
Mar 1, 2014
40
6
71
These can't even beat an i5 9600K in gaming, and that's before overclocking. They OC like crap and need 1.4v to hit 4.3. Same old story as before. As soon as Intel gets their new node up and running, AMD will be right back in the moar cores bargain bin. I didn't want this to happen. I wanted AMD to run over Intel like a truck. No use in lying about the way I feel regarding these new CPUs. I wouldn't buy them for anything but maybe a dedicated video encoding rig or something and we already had threadripper for that, so...DOA IMO.
If Intel had capital same as AMD they wouldn't even made cpu-s.
 

rbk123

Senior member
Aug 22, 2006
719
312
136
Given what was revealed at Computex, namely reaching parity with Intel in terms of IPC, and with the usual caveats of clock speeds being comparatively lower and memory latency being worse, I don't know why anyone would even consider that AMD could beat, let alone match Intel in gaming.
Go read 20 pages of 'I9-9900K is Intel's last hurrah in gaming?' to see how many "anyones" did more than "consider" AMD would beat Intel. But of course Moonbogg is still as clueless as ever. Even though the 3000 doesn't beat Intel, no one would be able to tell the difference when actually playing the games; it's just bragging rights around here. People would notice the beatdown in every other CPU intensive task that the 3000's would dish out, though.
 

coercitiv

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2014
3,958
4,285
136
These can't even beat an i5 9600K in gaming, and that's before overclocking. They OC like crap and need 1.4v to hit 4.3. Same old story as before. As soon as Intel gets their new node up and running, AMD will be right back in the moar cores bargain bin. I didn't want this to happen. I wanted AMD to run over Intel like a truck. No use in lying about the way I feel regarding these new CPUs. I wouldn't buy them for anything but maybe a dedicated video encoding rig or something and we already had threadripper for that, so...DOA IMO.
Is this a Zen 1 review?
 

mohit9206

Golden Member
Jul 2, 2013
1,306
444
136
These can't even beat an i5 9600K in gaming, and that's before overclocking. They OC like crap and need 1.4v to hit 4.3. Same old story as before. As soon as Intel gets their new node up and running, AMD will be right back in the moar cores bargain bin. I didn't want this to happen. I wanted AMD to run over Intel like a truck. No use in lying about the way I feel regarding these new CPUs. I wouldn't buy them for anything but maybe a dedicated video encoding rig or something and we already had threadripper for that, so...DOA IMO.
Give me one reason to pick an Intel CPU under $500 right now over its AMD counterpart because i don't see any.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS