Discussion Ryzen 3000 series benchmark thread ** Open **

[DrMrLordX]

@Hans Gruber

I think Samsung will forgive you.

 

[Hans Gruber]

@Hans Gruber

I think Samsung will forgive you.

I wrongly figured that all the SATA 3 ports were the same. I ran benchmarks and they were identical. Meaning the SATA 3 ports were throttled. I looked up ASmedia SATA 3 and complaints about their ports being slow were everywhere. I switched to the other set of SATA 3 ports and the speeds are back where they should be.

I've never experienced such bad speeds from SATA 3 ports before.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I wrongly figured that all the SATA 3 ports were the same. I ran benchmarks and they were identical. Meaning the SATA 3 ports were throttled. I looked up ASmedia SATA 3 and complaints about their ports being slow were everywhere. I switched to the other set of SATA 3 ports and the speeds are back where they should be.

I've never experienced such bad speeds from SATA 3 ports before.

As a general rule-of-thumb, boot devices like SATA SSDs go on SATA #0, which should be a "native" SATA port, part of the main chipset. Add-on (connected via PCI-E) SATA port controllers (ASMedia, JMicron, Marvell, Via), have traditionally never quite performed as well as the native SATA ports, Intel or AMD platform. Also, historically, Intel native SATA6G ports have been slightly faster than AMD native SATA6G ports, but at that point, you're mostly splitting hairs, especially if you have a less-than-top-of-the-line SATA SSDs. (Basically any SATA SSD other than a Samsung, and the most recent Intel SATA SSDs.)

Part of that is how that they are wired up via PCI-E (the add-on controllers), it has been largely the case, at least with add-on cards with those controller chips, using a PCI-E x1 lane connection (I forget if PCI-E 2.1 or 3.0/3.1), but it's basically limited to 500MB/sec each way, and each SATA port can theoretically handle 600MB/sec one way, so there's kind of a "bandwidth haircut" going on there too, and it wouldn't surprise me much if the add-on controller chips were wired and limited similarly.

 

[Hans Gruber]

 

[Hans Gruber]

The max read speed I have seen with a SATA 3 SSD is 560MB. Those are my Samsung 850evo numbers. The userbenchmark numbers are low for all the SSD's. But it is apples to apples.

 

[psolord]

I wrongly figured that all the SATA 3 ports were the same. I ran benchmarks and they were identical. Meaning the SATA 3 ports were throttled. I looked up ASmedia SATA 3 and complaints about their ports being slow were everywhere. I switched to the other set of SATA 3 ports and the speeds are back where they should be.

I've never experienced such bad speeds from SATA 3 ports before.

There's a reason they are called asmedia. However there's one s missing!

 

[Asterox]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1190704150708924417

Techpowerup about "1usmus custom power plan for Ryzen R9 3900X."

1usmus Custom Power Plan for Ryzen 3000 Zen 2 Processors

In this article by our resident Ryzen tweaking guru "1usmus" we present a customized power plan for AMD's new Ryzen 3000 processors. The new power plan ensures workloads run on the best cores, which not only increases boost clocks, but also stops threads from bouncing between cores too often.

www.techpowerup.com

Posting links or images without comments is not allowed.


esquared
Anandtech Forum Director

 

[Panino Manino]

The binning is incredible.

 

[Abwx]

3950X review at Computerbase, resuilts are more or less what was expected, for the ock crowd it s worth pointing that they got 10% frequency overclock on all cores.

AMD Ryzen 9 3950X im Test

Schon Ryzen 2000 war schnell in Anwendungen. Doch 18 Monate später ist der Ryzen 9 3950X auf gleichem Sockel mehr als doppelt so schnell.

www.computerbase.de

 

[Markfw]

From anandtech 3950x review https://www.anandtech.com/show/15043/the-amd-ryzen-9-3950x-review-16-cores-on-7nm-with-pcie-40/15

Its faster than the 3900x in everything. To be expected...

 

[TheGiant]

The binning is incredible.

for the binning status I think we need to know the clock for this chart

 

[Panino Manino]

for the binning status I think we need to know the clock for this chart

Read this page: https://www.anandtech.com/show/15043/the-amd-ryzen-9-3950x-review-16-cores-on-7nm-with-pcie-40/2

 

[Hitman928]

From computerbase:

 

[TheGiant]

Read this page: https://www.anandtech.com/show/15043/the-amd-ryzen-9-3950x-review-16-cores-on-7nm-with-pcie-40/2

I did, but that freq means povray testing and I cant find in the article of the power numbers are for that testing
I dont see any extra binning except it can reach single core of 4,7GHz, for a hefty increase in single core power from 18 to 24W for 100 MHz
my guess on the clocks is

AMD Ryzen 9 3950X Review: The New Performance King

The Ryzen 9 3950X looks to bridge the gap between mainstream and high-end desktop platforms and is the most expensive mainstream platform CPU we've seen in a...

www.techspot.com

the cinebench allmighty gives 9228 vs 7220 score, so 7720/12*16=9626 and 9626/9928=1.043 so the freq is about 4.3% lower
so with that freq/voltage curve this means nothing special, just standard board regulation for power limit

however this is new level of performance one can get on standard desktop, but for who, for me my 3900X is a big overkill

I still think AMD should place the price higher, they are not using their chance

as for TDP,

most of thise CPUs in the chart (except HEDT) are 91,95 or 105 W TDP
TDP=new internet joke of this age

 

[Abwx]

the cinebench allmighty gives 9228 vs 7220 score, so 7720/12*16=9626 and 9626/9928=1.043 so the freq is about 4.3% lower
so with that freq/voltage curve this means nothing special, just standard board regulation for power limit

4.3% lower frequency should cut power by 15% with the frequency/voltage at play, so that s not enough to cope with 33% more cores, not counting that 16C will have higher peak currents than a 12C even at same power, wich mandate more voltage to compensate for bigger voltage drops.

So there s some binning that has been made surely during several months, a hint is that Computerbase.de sample hit 4.725MHz on single core tests, not sure that previous SKUs could hit such a value even when overclocked with higher voltages.

 

[Hitman928]

most of thise CPUs in the chart (except HEDT) are 91,95 or 105 W TDP
TDP=new internet joke of this age

That's system power, not CPU power.

With that said, both AMD and Intel allow for sustained boost levels at stock as long as your cooling solution and power delivery can handle it. That means that both 95W intel chips and 105W AMD chips will use ~140W all core if your setup can handle it. Additionally, both AMD and Intel allow for essentially unlocked power limits which will obviously use more power for higher sustained boosts. Some motherboards (especially on the intel side as of late) will unlock these power limits by default so CPU power use will depend largely on the motherboard you choose. This behavior has evolved over time and I think both Intel and AMD need to be more transparent about it (like listing both a base TDP and boost TDP) but this is where the unfortunate lack of traditional technology scaling has brought us.

 

[DrMrLordX]

not sure that previous SKUs could hit such a value even when overclocked with higher voltages.

My 3900x definitely can't. $750 is too rich for my blood, but I will say that anyone who waited this long for the 3950x won't be disappointed.

 

[Markfw]

Where are the 3960 and 3970x reviews ? Wasn't that today also ?

 

[amrnuke]

The reviews show FPS in gaming gaining a lot on 9900KS. That's remarkable IMO for a 16C/32T chip whose focus was ostensibly to bridge the gap productivity-wise between mainstream and HEDT. These are well-binned. TechSpot's review of the productivity stuff - the 3950X just destroys everything.

If they have been able to scale this well so far, I think this bodes extremely well for the impending 3960, 3970 TR chips (and hopefully that most elusive of moarcoarbois, the 3990WX). That being said, I agree now more than ever with many on here that a 16C/32T TR chip, with that massive surface area for heat dissipation, would be a potential gaming king, maybe even hit that elusive 5 GHz mark on water.

Lastly, I wonder, as the process matures, if we are going to see some new 3x50 lines for budget gaming. I now wonder about a 3850X with 8C/16T at 4.7-4.8 GHz? Sounds pretty sweet. A 3650X with 6C/12T at 4.6-4.7 GHz would be pretty cool too.

 

[moinmoin]

Where are the 3960 and 3970x reviews ? Wasn't that today also ?

It's just 3950X today.

 

[lobz]

I did, but that freq means povray testing and I cant find in the article of the power numbers are for that testing
I dont see any extra binning except it can reach single core of 4,7GHz, for a hefty increase in single core power from 18 to 24W for 100 MHz
my guess on the clocks is

AMD Ryzen 9 3950X Review: The New Performance King

The Ryzen 9 3950X looks to bridge the gap between mainstream and high-end desktop platforms and is the most expensive mainstream platform CPU we've seen in a...

www.techspot.com

the cinebench allmighty gives 9228 vs 7220 score, so 7720/12*16=9626 and 9626/9928=1.043 so the freq is about 4.3% lower
so with that freq/voltage curve this means nothing special, just standard board regulation for power limit

however this is new level of performance one can get on standard desktop, but for who, for me my 3900X is a big overkill

I still think AMD should place the price higher, they are not using their chance

as for TDP,

most of thise CPUs in the chart (except HEDT) are 91,95 or 105 W TDP
TDP=new internet joke of this age

You got so caught up in trying to prove your point that you forgot about the 16 cores vs the 12 in the 3900X. Nothing special, eh? OK.

 

[Kocicak]

I cannot imagine any reason why the power consumption of the 3950X as a function of the cores used should have this weird characteristic, as measured by Anandtech. Why does it not go like I indicated with the green line?

 

[Zucker2k]

I cannot imagine any reason why the power consumption of the 3950X as a function of the cores used should have this weird characteristic, as measured by Anandtech. Why does it not go like I indicated with the green line?

View attachment 13213

Heat.

 

[jpiniero]

HP HP Laptop 17-ca2xxx - Geekbench

Benchmark results for a HP HP Laptop 17-ca2xxx with an AMD Athlon Gold 3150U with Radeon Graphics processor.

browser.geekbench.com

AMD apparently is now ripping off Intel's low end core marketing with the Athlon Gold 3150U. Not sure if legit. Despite what it says it is likely Pinnacle Ridge based.

 

[VirtualLarry]

AMD apparently is now ripping off Intel's low end core marketing with the Athlon Gold 3150U. Not sure if legit. Despite what it says it is likely Pinnacle Ridge based.

It could just be HP doing it, with AMD being complicit in setting the CPUID name string for a batch of OEM CPUs for them. Remember that thread about the Future Shop ad, with AMD A8 APUs in laptops, being sold as "10 Core". Maybe someone will do the favor of looking that one up. I believe that was also HP's doing.