AMD on Ryzen 3000 overclocking: "You're not going to see a whole lot of manual OC headroom"

[yRaz]

Ryzen had three process nodes and their competitor stuck on 14nm, and couldn't even play games faster. Games. More people play games than Photoshop. Fact. Ryzen is a tough sell to 80% of the planet. Ryzen is STILL for the 20%.

Gamers Nexus literally took a crap on the 3700X and for good reason. The chip doesn't make any sense. This is what AMD has done with a 7nm advantage? It's a joke. Even Techspot's 3700X/3900X called them Productivity Kings, because they are very tough sells to gamers. The 3900X is AMD's worst flagship since Bulldozer. It's a one trick pony and not representative of a Ryzen chip. The 3900X is a Threadripper part, not a Ryzen part.

AMD needed a smoking gun. Ryzen 2 isn't it.

While I will agree that Intel is still faster for gaming than AMD, AMD is now competitive on a price/performance level. It is also faster in the server and workstation space for MOST use cases. And while gamer Nexus didn't have the most positive review of ryzen, they did far from "take a crap on it".

If you feel Intel is the better buy for you I won't tell you otherwise, but it would be nice if you didn't hate on AMD as much as you are. Heck, Intel is dropping their prices as a response to Ryzen 2 and that directly benefits you as well as all consumers.

 

[Stark]

Ryzen had three process nodes and their competitor stuck on 14nm, and couldn't even play games faster. Games. More people play games than Photoshop. Fact. Ryzen is a tough sell to 80% of the planet. Ryzen is STILL for the 20%.

Gamers Nexus literally took a crap on the 3700X and for good reason. The chip doesn't make any sense. This is what AMD has done with a 7nm advantage? It's a joke. Even Techspot's 3700X/3900X called them Productivity Kings, because they are very tough sells to gamers. The 3900X is AMD's worst flagship since Bulldozer. It's a one trick pony and not representative of a Ryzen chip. The 3900X is a Threadripper part, not a Ryzen part.

AMD needed a smoking gun. Ryzen 2 isn't it.

For all this Intel being the gaming king lets break it down :
1. even for an i5 to have an advantage in gaming it needs 2070 or above GPU to have that 10 FPS advantage. a GTX 1070 has 4.64 market share : https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/
2. Majority of the market is about the mid range which gives similar performance with any cpu.
3.for less amount of money AMD offers a better balanced CPU which can handle multitasking better. eg. i5 vs 2600 for streaming, where i5 has stuttering issues.
4. Ryzen 3000 has considerably reduced the gap and is within 5-10 FPS of Intel with lower TDP.

So yeah I will recommend AMD over Intel to my family and friends for better cost effectiveness, and upgradability unless they plan on going GPU heavy.

 

[hahahanoobs]

For all this Intel being the gaming king lets break it down :
1. even for an i5 to have an advantage in gaming it needs 2070 or above GPU to have that 10 FPS advantage. a GTX 1070 has 4.64 market share : https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/
2. Majority of the market is about the mid range which gives similar performance with any cpu.
3.for less amount of money AMD offers a better balanced CPU which can handle multitasking better. eg. i5 vs 2600 for streaming, where i5 has stuttering issues.
4. Ryzen 3000 has considerably reduced the gap and is within 5-10 FPS of Intel with lower TDP.

So yeah I will recommend AMD over Intel to my family and friends for better cost effectiveness, and upgradability unless they plan on going GPU heavy.

Top Resolution - 1080p
Top GPU - GTX 1060
Top Core count - 4

AMD has nothing right now to make waves in any of those segments with Ryzen or Navi. The i5 9600 and i7 9700 are way more attractive buys.

On a side note, Navi 5700 series is WAY more interesting than Ryzen 2. It performs beautifully for gamers spending that much on a GPU, and the upcoming 5600 series could make waves against the competition there too. The performance spread between the 5700 and 5700XT is also a lot larger than that of ANY two Ryzen 2 CPU's in games.

The difference between the 3700X and 3900X alone is only 3ps at both resolutions tested here. That's sad. AMD is going backwards. 3900X is trash for gaming, and should have been a Threadripper part. It's a horrible consumer flagship.

 

[Stark]

Well if you like paying double the price for that 5fps more and have higher TDP then who am I to say no?

 

[agent4054]

For all this Intel being the gaming king lets break it down :
1. even for an i5 to have an advantage in gaming it needs 2070 or above GPU to have that 10 FPS advantage. a GTX 1070 has 4.64 market share : https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/
2. Majority of the market is about the mid range which gives similar performance with any cpu.
3.for less amount of money AMD offers a better balanced CPU which can handle multitasking better. eg. i5 vs 2600 for streaming, where i5 has stuttering issues.
4. Ryzen 3000 has considerably reduced the gap and is within 5-10 FPS of Intel with lower TDP.

So yeah I will recommend AMD over Intel to my family and friends for better cost effectiveness, and upgradability unless they plan on going GPU heavy.

Top Resolution - 1080p
Top GPU - GTX 1060
Top Core count - 4

AMD has nothing right now to make waves in any of those segments with Ryzen or Navi. The i5 9600 and i7 9700 are way more attractive buys.

On a side note, Navi 5700 series is WAY more interesting than Ryzen 2. It performs beautifully for gamers spending that much on a GPU, and the upcoming 5600 series could make waves against the competition there too. The performance spread between the 5700 and 5700XT is also a lot larger than that of ANY two Ryzen 2 CPU's in games.

The difference between the 3700X and 3900X alone is only 3ps at both resolutions tested here. That's sad. AMD is going backwards. 3900X is trash for gaming, and should have been a Threadripper part. It's a horrible consumer flagship.

"Horrible consumer flagship"
So, I'm aware that your argument is completely on the basis of gaming, but it really shouldn't be, as not all consumers are gamers. Not by a long shot. I mean, even from a gaming perspective, the 3900X is not BAD. It's just not as good as Intel's offering, and even there, the differences are very minor. But by saying something is horrible, you'd think it would be worse than last gen, which is obviously not the case at all. So from what I can gather, you just really seem to enjoy blowing things out of proportion.

I say the differences are minor, because comparatively to productivity cases, it's completely insignificant. The 3900X is an excellent CONSUMER flagship.

 

[avioza]

It's a horrible consumer flagship.

Perhaps he is just trolling?

Intel seems to disagree with you, their slashing of prices across several categories is a strong indication that at the very least they see the need to fight harder for that 80% market share.

 

[hahahanoobs]

Perhaps he is just trolling?

Intel seems to disagree with you, their slashing of prices across several categories is a strong indication that at the very least they see the need to fight harder for that 80% market share.

Consumers love big numbers, and Intel can't ignore what AMD is doing.
3900X is a MT'ing beast, but it's in the wrong market. It should have been a Threadripper part. It's quite obvious. Average joes are not dying to get their hands on 12 core parts. It's just not how it works.

 

[urbanman2004]

3700X FTW

 

[Shadowboxer]

I love and hate overclocking but if you can have max performance out the box then I’d rather have that. New Ryzen is clearly fit, enable PBO and forget and if you ask me that’s a lot better than spending hours validating an overclock. Sure, it does feel good when you overclock and get some good results but it’s still a long time consuming exercise.

These new Ryzen parts are knocking the spots of Intel’s chips at the moment (and their own previous ryzen gens) and the only area they fall behind is in gaming. But seeing results from the $200 3600 you’re around 10% on average behind Intel’s best at less than half the price. Intel are beaten, they are done. The only consumers who are better off buying them are people who have more money than know what to do with and want that extra 10%. Although I should point out that this may include me, my desktop is purely a gaming machine and these CPUs aren’t silly prices really. However I am quite content with my 4790K for the time being. I do all my work on a laptop that’s given to me, maybe AMD can use this new 7nm efficiency to give me a laptop with better battery life and performance than my i5 8xxx thing.

It’s funny, the people on here claiming Ryzen 2 isn’t a killer punch remind me very much of the people trying to tell you to buy an FX8350 over an i7 back in 2013.

 

[Stark]

I love and hate overclocking but if you can have max performance out the box then I’d rather have that. New Ryzen is clearly fit, enable PBO and forget and if you ask me that’s a lot better than spending hours validating an overclock. Sure, it does feel good when you overclock and get some good results but it’s still a long time-consuming exercise.

Well, you can pretty much ignore overclocking by buying "x" parts like 3600x with precision boost which will hit its rated and some above speed with good cooling.