|
Debauer has a video up regarding overclocking headroom (there isn't any): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXbCdGENp5I 5GHz is pure fantasy. e:f;b
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 13:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 10:39 |
|
|
AMD clockspeeds are the new Intel TDP  e: Ryzen 3 launch in Japan: https://twitter.com/hermita_akiba/status/1147788556821118977 eames fucked around with this message at 13:59 on Jul 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 13:50
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure that if I can get my hands on a 3800x that's the one I'm going for. I have no loving idea for a motherboard though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 13:52
|
|
|
The 3900x is available on Best Buy now if anyone missed it on NewEgg.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 13:56
|
|
|
Anandtech review is up https://www.anandtech.com/show/14605/the-ryzen-3700x-3900x-review-raising-the-bar
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 14:05
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AbNeht4tAE Gamers Nexus' review of the 3600 is up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 14:07
|
|
|
Any reviews on how it goes with older motherboards vs the X570?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 14:09
|
|
|
OhFunny posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AbNeht4tAE tl;dw: it's crazy value for your money at $200 MSRP, as expected For gaming it's somewhat underwhelming though because it doesn't really beat an overclocked 9600K in many cases, but it should be a good bit cheaper and it's better at most other things. R9 3900X doing 12C/24T @ 4.3GHz with only 1.34v and 170W   My 8700K draws more than that at the same voltage in heavy workloads, and that's with half the cores!
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 14:38
|
|
|
Ragingsheep posted:Any reviews on how it goes with older motherboards vs the X570? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDVUdpcKZMA Hardware unboxed has a few charts in the middle of the video. X570 consistently wins by 1% over B450. So nothing in it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 14:44
|
|
|
eames posted:since they're all hitting a wall at that frequency seems safe to assume that they're heavily binning for later SKUs (threadripper, 3950X, etc) again.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 14:53
|
|
|
So am I okay with my 3200mhz cl 16 Hynix cjr die if I go with ryzen 3600 or should i get something better? Any info yet on what the difference will be with a higher memory clock?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 14:56
|
|
|
eames posted:der8auer video up early it seems Wait seriously? Are we sure that's not a BIOS issue?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 15:00
|
|
|
Golden Gate Bride posted:So am I okay with my 3200mhz cl 16 Hynix cjr die if I go with ryzen 3600 or should i get something better? Any info yet on what the difference will be with a higher memory clock? Reviewers have been saying memory compatibility is leagues better than it was with Zen 1. You should be fine for the moment.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 15:03
|
|
|
jisforjosh posted:Wait seriously? Are we sure that's not a BIOS issue? 1800X release was the same, a wall at 3.9 GHz with little variance between CPUs. Better chips were held back for other CPUs. It's not that bad considering the overall performance results. Chances are we'll see another die shrink relatively soon that will bump up frequencies a bit... tick, tock, tick, tock?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 15:06
|
|
|
Inept posted:Anandtech review is up https://www.anandtech.com/show/14605/the-ryzen-3700x-3900x-review-raising-the-bar The 3700x looks like a beast bone stock. Indistinguishable from a 9900K in games, sipping ~82W peak total package 
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 15:11
|
|
|
Those clocks are flat-out disappointing. So much for the 25% higher clocks clocks they were talking up in previews... that’s barely better than a binned 14+ could do. It barely even reaches advertised boost on a single core let alone any sort of all-core load, and there’s absolutely no OC headroom left. I don’t think the math changed other than that, they’d match Intel at 4.5 to 4.7, but 4.2-4.3 just isn’t good enough to match up in gaming. It’s a good deal for productivity though. We’ll see if anybody finds a silver bullet like with first gen Ryzen though. Maybe it just needs to be delidded or something. Those thermals are pretty toasty, maybe it can get closer if you open up the power limits and keep it cool. Otherwise, maybe next gen on a tweaked uarch and a more mature node. This is only the first go-around on 7nm. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 15:34 on Jul 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 15:23
|
|
|
Are there any 3800X benchmarks yet? I'm weighing that vs the 3700X. A bit surprised at the 3700X gaming results vs the 9700k/9900k, figured it would do better based on the leaks. The lack of any OC headroom is also disappointing. At the resolution I game at I'll be more GPU limited anyway though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 15:25
|
|
|
The Gunslinger posted:Are there any 3800X benchmarks yet? I'm weighing that vs the 3700X. A bit surprised at the 3700X gaming results vs the 9700k/9900k, figured it would do better based on the leaks. The lack of any OC headroom is also disappointing. At the resolution I game at I'll be more GPU limited anyway though. Yeah the OC being so low is definitely disappointing. I'd be curious to see peak OC on both platforms in gaming benchmarks. All I've seen is in synthetics
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 15:28
|
|
|
I think it is safe to say the 3900X is basically at parity with a 9900k in games if you take a look at the techpowerup review. The review pairs good memory settings/speeds on all platforms with a 2080 Ti and the difference between a 9900k and a 3900X is barely 7% even at 720p. And if you axe Far Cry 5 from the benchmark is probably a lot closer past 720p (that game is so horribly single thread IPC dependent it is ridiculous: it doesn't flatten out on a GPU limit till 4k). Any game that even slightly leans in to multi-threaded performance has the 3900X neck and neck with the 9900k.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 15:36
|
|
|
Did anyone pick up one of these CPUs in person today? Mine won't arrive until Tuesday at the earliest and I was wondering if they came with thermal paste or whether I needed to get some of it separately. I've never actually purchased a CPU that wasn't already pre-mounted and don't want to gently caress things up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 15:37
|
|
|
jisforjosh posted:Yeah the OC being so low is definitely disappointing. I'd be curious to see peak OC on both platforms in gaming benchmarks. All I've seen is in synthetics It looks like in gaming it's probably best to keep it at stock or PBO, this is 1080p gaming from TPU. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 15:38
|
|
|
I'm torn between getting the 3600 or the 3700X for gaming. I'm leaning towards the 3700X because that would give me parity with the next-gen consoles but that's ~$130 more I'm spending on the CPU that I could be spending on more RAM or a larger SSD. As for the video card I'm going to move my GTX1070 to the new system so that right there will save me $200-$300. I will have to get a new power supply though because my Corsair HX650 is as old as my i5-2500k. And this will be my first AMD build since my Socket 939 A64 3000+ rig in 2005.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 15:40
|
|
|
Very tempted by the 3700x now. I'm not really interested in overclocking and the power efficiency is very appealing. Then again, even a 3600 would be a big jump compared to my 2500k.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 15:41
|
|
|
From reading and watching around, the takeaways so far seem to be: - X570 isn't showing noticeable performance improvements over older motherboard models, although it has some new features (PCIe 4.0, more USB 3.1, higher-frequency DRAM support) - DRAM memory latency is worse on-paper but that doesn't seem to have any impact in practice - You probably don't need to be as worried about goldilocks'ing out the RAM that's juuuuuuuust right - You basically can't overclock Zen2 beyond turning on PBO, as it stands. The advertised boost frequency speeds are actually, in effect, the overclocked limits and you might not even be able to reach them, let alone go beyond them. - Zen2 has lower power consumption but runs extremely hot (maybe to the point that the CPU coolers normally promoted in this forum aren't up to the challenge, judging from some comments here?) - All-core speeds max out at 4.3 even if the advertised single-thread boost speed is higher - Using Anandtech's Cinebench R15 comparison, the 3900X single-thread performance is about 5% worse even with PBO on vs. an i9-9900K running at stock - Using Anandtech's Cinebench R15 comparison, the PBO'd 3900X multi-thread performance is about 34$ better than stock i9-9900K - Using Anandtech's Geekbench 4 comparison, the stock 3900X single-thread performance is about 7% worse than the stock i9-9900K - Using Anandtech's Geekbench 4 comparison, the stock 3900X multi-thread performance is about 51% better than the stock i9-9900K - No CPUs in its price range can lay a finger on the 3900X for multi-threaded performance, it's leagues ahead - From a gaming perspective, the 3700X and the 3900X provide about the same performance - Intel i7-9700K and i9-9900K are still a slightly preferable choice for gaming specifically compared to AMD 3700X and 3900X, but the gap is minuscule at this point and would change if more heavily multi-threaded games started coming out with the release of the next console gen - Overall, the narrative doesn't seem to have changed. If you need pure single-threaded performance, go Intel. If you need multi-threaded performance, go AMD. If you need both, you'll get a better value from AMD. surf rock fucked around with this message at 15:49 on Jul 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 15:42
|
|
|
Looks like it'll take another week till there's any stock of 3700 or higher in Finland, not even amazon.de has any.. meh its all clear to me now, the americans have stolen our cpus
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 15:46
|
|
|
surf rock posted:- Intel i7-9700K and i9-9900K are still a slightly preferable choice for gaming specifically compared to AMD 3700X and 3900X, but the gap is minuscule at this point and would change if more heavily multi-threaded games started coming out with the release of the next console gen I dunno about that. The argument only makes any sense when you take price out of the equation. The 9900K was already a very specialized, gaming-only processor considering its place in the market, now it's a niche of a niche of a niche. The only advantage it now has over the 3700X is a single digit percentage improvement in clock speed for a 30% price premium. If all you want is the most gaming performance possible from your PC and you're happy to spend big money chasing tiny returns, yeah, maaaybe a 9900K makes sense, but that describes nearly nobody. edit: to be clear, this is definitely a narrative change. The gap between the 9900K and 2700X was large enough that it made sense to go Intel if you're chasing frames and have money to burn. Now, the difference is so infinitesimal that it probably makes more sense to get more cores for future-proofing than worry about clock. Dr. Fishopolis fucked around with this message at 15:58 on Jul 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 15:55
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:I dunno about that. The argument only makes any sense when you take price out of the equation. The 9900K was already a very specialized, gaming-only processor considering its place in the market, now it's a niche of a niche of a niche. The only advantage it now has over the 3700X is a single digit percentage improvement in clock speed for a 30% price premium. That sounds like a sizeable segment of the PC Gaming market actually
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 16:00
|
|
|
jisforjosh posted:That sounds like a sizeable segment of the PC Gaming market actually Fair enough, but there's a big difference between a potential 15-20% performance delta and a 2-8%. Consider not just the chip but the platform price, and intel stops making sense much faster now. Of course you're always gonna have big baller shot callers who only game if they have a buddy handy to babysit the LN2 pot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 16:06
|
|
|
I do wonder how much things will change when the new consoles come out with more cores. Will 6 cores cut it after next year for example?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 16:07
|
|
|
jisforjosh posted:That sounds like a sizeable segment of the PC Gaming market actually I'd say the majority of the PC gaming market is buying the best price-to-performance. AMD has been outselling Intel in the DIY market for some time. The gap is only going to widen in their favor with Ryzen 3000.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 16:08
|
|
|
Oovee posted:its all clear to me now, the americans have stolen our cpus We need those cpus so we can play our anime titty games on steam. But seriously, I just want to build a new rig so I can play Cyberpunk 2077, Doom Eternal, and some MMO games that need more CPU grunt. Actually I've been playing mostly Indie games lately and my old 2500k still runs those games very well but there are some new games on the horizon that I want to play and I'm thinking those said games will need more than a old 2500k to run them smoothly if they would run at all. I wouldn't be surprised if Cyberpunk 2077 would require a six-core CPU (or at least a quad-core with SMT) and recommends an eight-core CPU.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 16:10
|
|
|
Chas McGill posted:I do wonder how much things will change when the new consoles come out with more cores. Will 6 cores cut it after next year for example? Without question, yes. There's still a ton of poo poo that just can't be multithreaded.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 16:12
|
|
|
I mean all these reviews clearly show the 9700k and 9900k are still the leaders for pure gaming, especially when overclocked. Yes it comes with a price premium but that is usually the case when chasing the last 10-15% performance in a build. With that said the $200 3600 looks like a great chip and will provide a great experience for 90% of folks building a PC, there are very few areas I can see recommending an intel i5 chip to anyone. As Paul said the clock wall is lower than I expected, I was thinking it would top out around 4.5 ghz, not 4.2/4.3. If AMD can squeeze out another 200-300 MHz for the ryzen 4000 series they will be in a good position. I’m also curious to see how gen undervolts since keeping more out overclocking isn’t really a thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 16:13
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Fair enough, but there's a big difference between a potential 15-20% performance delta and a 2-8%. Consider not just the chip but the platform price, and intel stops making sense much faster now. Of course you're always gonna have big baller shot callers who only game if they have a buddy handy to babysit the LN2 pot. And it’s not even 2-8. It’s 2-8 if you have a ridiculously powerful GPU and are running at a lower resolution at very high frame rates where 2-8% will be practically indistinguishable for 99.9% of users. That goes in general for buying top-end CPUs for gaming anyway. The most noticeable difference will be letting you limp along for an extra year or two while your very expensive CPU is being outclassed by current budget options.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 16:14
|
|
|
All the reviews and stuff pretty much make me think as a newcomer: "If you had a lot of money to burn and was a pro-gamer at 1080p most FPS you can get, then sure...intel would still be it. But if you are looking for literally anything else, time to switch to AMD." Even in gaming, the direct price point competitors Intel has to offer (as opposed to its best of the best) vs this new lineup come out ahead in only a few select games in 1080p while losing to 3700x in most others...and in 1440p the difference is so small that it really doesn't matter whatsoever. I know there's still the overclocking results to wait on to be fleshed out more fully, but yeah... CrazyLoon fucked around with this message at 16:22 on Jul 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 16:19
|
|
|
Wonder what's gonna happen with 3800(X); seems like it's kind of an unfortunate tier between 3700 and 3900.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 16:20
|
|
|
It's hard to say how these CPUs will shake out over the next few months because launch binning does not necessarily equal the quality of silicon you get in a few months. I'm not at all surprised that there's no OC headroom, PBO was really good before and they've had another year to iterate on it so I would expect it to be extremely optimal. It's the one area where AMD is well ahead of Intel. The 3800X may well have enough of a binning advantage to justify it for some people, but I suspect that in a few months it probably won't. Still want to see benchmarks that are actually meaningful for the 3700X+ vs Intel (where no one in their right mind building a new system is going to settle for 3200mhz ram).
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 16:26
|
|
|
ufarn posted:Wonder what's gonna happen with 3800(X); seems like it's kind of an unfortunate tier between 3700 and 3900. I really think the 3600x and 3800x are there to get you to step to the next tier. $250 3600x, well only $70 gets me two more cores and a bit better boost! $400 3800x, well only $100 get me four more cores and a bit better boost!
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 16:28
|
|
|
K8.0 posted:Still want to see benchmarks that are actually meaningful for the 3700X+ vs Intel (where no one in their right mind building a new system is going to settle for 3200mhz ram). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNH9FYgW8m4 This one actually compares them at the same RAM speeds (2133mhz), although there is still a lack of gaming alas. AMD still creams it in most cases for productivity CrazyLoon fucked around with this message at 16:32 on Jul 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 16:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 10:39 |
|
|
Forgot to check the retailers at 10am so I guess I should just wait for the 3950x as a 2700x owner since there won't be more inventory until then anyway, right Edit: still in stock on AMD's store triple sulk fucked around with this message at 16:43 on Jul 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 16:31
|
|
