AMD Ryzen 9 3900X and Ryzen 7 3700X Review: Kings of Productivity

[Julio Franco]

It's finally time to review AMD's new 3rd-gen Ryzen processors. The Ryzen 9 3900X is a 12-core, 24-thread processor with a massive 64MB L3 cache. It costs $500, placing it in direct competition with the Core i9-9900K. Then the Ryzen 7 3700X costs $330 and AMD suggests it's taking on the more expensive 9700K.

Read the full article here.

https://www.techspot.com/review/1869-amd-ryzen-3900x-ryzen-3700x/

 

[LogiGaming]

Wow such a major disapointment! Awful overclockers, can´t even sustain acceptable clocks with acceptable voltages. They run hot and still underperforming in games compared to Intel CPUs at 4,8ghz. Meh, I was expecting AMD to completly obliterate Intel but this is just a major let down!

 

[JimEs]

Wow such a major disapointment! Awful overclockers, can´t even sustain acceptable clocks with acceptable voltages. They run hot and still underperforming in games compared to Intel CPUs at 4,8ghz. Meh, I was expecting AMD to completly obliterate Intel but this is just a major let down!

Bro! You just posted cringe!

 

[quadibloc]

Finally, an AMD review that isn't a leak! That the AMD processors are still a tad behind the Intel ones in gaming, given that they cost much less, and offer more power in other areas, doesn't put me off them - and, I suspect, games will be able to take better advantage of multiple threads in future, so that gaming performance starts to look like productivity performance.

And if Intel needs competition from AMD, surely AMD needs competition from Intel.

 

[LogiGaming]

Wow such a major disapointment! Awful overclockers, can´t even sustain acceptable clocks with acceptable voltages. They run hot and still underperforming in games compared to Intel CPUs at 4,8ghz. Meh, I was expecting AMD to completly obliterate Intel but this is just a major let down!

Bro! You just posted cringe!

Dude cringe?? Look at the benchmarks, some games have 20%/30% differences on the 1% Lows compared to Intel and that´s at 1440p!! Weren´t you expecting better gaming performance from these chips after everything that AMD promoted? Cmon, this can barely compete with a stock 7700k in games. The 9700k/9900k completly obliterate these Ryzen chips in games, by still a large and noticeable difference.

 

[Toju Mikie]

Wow such a major disapointment! Awful overclockers, can´t even sustain acceptable clocks with acceptable voltages. They run hot and still underperforming in games compared to Intel CPUs at 4,8ghz. Meh, I was expecting AMD to completly obliterate Intel but this is just a major let down!

I don't see the problem here. The pricing of these CPUs make them a slam dunk! Think about it, in terms of gaming, it gets slightly fewer frames, but it is also cheaper. You also get more threads and cores. These are great CPUs with many cores that will work on a cheap socket! That's what I want

 

[amghwk]

Nothing new here. AMD is STILL playing the catch-up game. Pass.

Waiting with popcorn for the AMD warriors. Bring 'em on... **munch...munch**

 

[Steve]

Assassin's Creed Odyssey - WHY DirectX 11??? Using DX12 gives a boost to CPUs with more cores/threads in this game (unlike in Battlefield sadly).

And it's safe to say that 3700X looks like a better choice over i7-8700K.

Where is the 3600(X) test?

Are you trolling? I honestly can't tell.

 

[OptimumSlinky]

Nothing new here. AMD is STILL playing the catch-up game. Pass.

Waiting with popcorn for the AMD warriors. Bring 'em on... **munch...munch**

Ah, yes, the Intel superiority crowd, enjoying their marginal lead in a select few games while basking in almost double the price (and no hyper-threading) and way more power consumption and heat.

Anyone thinking AMD was going to suddenly catch up to Intel after a decade behind is not being realistic.

The fact of the matter is AMD is trading blows with a company 10x it's size, and delivering awesome value for customers. How anyone views that as a loss is beyond me.

 

[loki1944]

Disappointing.

 

[LogiGaming]

Nothing new here. AMD is STILL playing the catch-up game. Pass.

Waiting with popcorn for the AMD warriors. Bring 'em on... **munch...munch**

Ah, yes, the Intel superiority crowd, enjoying their marginal lead in a select few games while basking in almost double the price (and no hyper-threading) and way more power consumption and heat.

Anyone thinking AMD was going to suddenly catch up to Intel after a decade behind is not being realistic.

The fact of the matter is AMD is trading blows with a company 10x it's size, and delivering awesome value for customers. How anyone views that as a loss is beyond me.

"Marginal lead" -> 30fps on the 1% lows on a lot of games. More damage control please. 2 weeks ago AMD would obliterate Intel in everything and no one would have any reason to buy Intel anymore.

 

[Nobina]

Considering all the R5 3600 leaks I saw I thought these CPUs were gonna top everything, it seemed too good to be true and it is, as usual, not surprised. Still, they're not bad by any means, I'm waiting for the 3600 benchmarks, if it turns out to be good I might even be in the market for a new CPU.

 

[TheDevopsGuy]

O dear me. These comments are laughable at best. Intel is still king. Whats interesting for sure is that AMD sure is catching up quickly, with cheaper prices at that too.

In short Gamers who want the best of the best will still purchase Intel.

Productivity and enthusiast users + budget builds will purchase AMD.

We've honestly had these predictions for months and even slight leaks for the past weeks and people are still surprised with all the benches.

 

[treetops]

Would like some more graphs especially with a variety of video cards\games. If the 2700x only gets bottle necked on 3-5 games with a 2070 super. Your average gamer wants to know what's the best price vs performance CPU to match each card. And of course the best gaming CPU, 3950x with only 8 cores enabled? Looks like Newegg has already sold out most of it's CPUs.

 

[transerv]

I was all set to buy the Chip till I saw the Prices for the M.B. they START at 200. and go up 3-400 $$$$ Did you see in Gaming the I-5 9600 K BEAT or Tied these 2 Chips in gaming. I saw it on sale the other day for 225 $$ and it doesn't need a 3-400 M.B. That is NOW the Chip I want that was in 1440 2K.

 

[parowOOz]

Damn, I really wanted AMD to do better besides content creation tasks which they had been strong in already. I'm not a heavy content ctreator myself so Ryzens' prowess in this department don't mean much to me.

I really don't want to invest in Intel's 9xxx series CPUs as they are basically Skylake squeezed to the max and more of a reactionary products rather than something actually new and exciting. Oh well, I think I'll live with my current setup for another year or so.

 

[parowOOz]

Would like some more graphs especially with a variety of video cards\games. If the 2700x only gets bottle necked on 3-5 games with a 2070 super. Your average gamer wants to know what's the best price vs performance CPU to match each card. And of course the best gaming CPU, 3950x with only 8 cores enabled? Looks like Newegg has already sold out most of it's CPUs.

I'm sure we'll get more detailed analysis once the dust has settled but for now I think it's pretty obvious which CPU has the best bang/$ in gaming - i7-9700K. It costs slightly more than the X3700 but significantly less than the X3900 while performing better overall than both of them (in some cases quite significantly in terms of lowes FPS).

Hm, wouldn't X3950 be very close to the X3700 with a slight OC ? Not sure I would consider that a good choice considering huge price difference and the need to actually disable half of the chip.

 

[Ravalo]

Wow such a major disapointment! Awful overclockers, can´t even sustain acceptable clocks with acceptable voltages. They run hot and still underperforming in games compared to Intel CPUs at 4,8ghz. Meh, I was expecting AMD to completly obliterate Intel but this is just a major let down!

You know they were using the stock cooler that is barely as good as the hyper 212, right?

 

[pencea]

Sure Intel still takes the lead when it comes to single threaded performance and higher overall performance in games, but Ryzen's progression has gotten to the point where it’s already pushing really high frame rates enough to keep it competitive with the majority of Intel’s processors.

Ryzen takes a small hit deficiency in single threaded performance but has far superior multi threaded performance workloads. I know where my money is going.

3900X is my next build

 

[Dimitrios]

I taste the sweat and fear of INTEL fanboys and stock holders. I read this review on GURU3D and I'm impressed with the performance and yes INTEL squeezes a few frames but it's way more expensive, drinks more electricity runs hotter, poor resale value, and security patches that are added monthly.

Low res and a 2080ti is when you notice AMD is a few FPS short. But who games at 720p and owns an Nvidia 2080ti? Sorry INTEL your thunder has been stolen from AMD.

 

[Nobina]

Nothing new here. AMD is STILL playing the catch-up game. Pass.

Waiting with popcorn for the AMD warriors. Bring 'em on... **munch...munch**

Ah, yes, the Intel superiority crowd, enjoying their marginal lead in a select few games while basking in almost double the price (and no hyper-threading) and way more power consumption and heat.

Anyone thinking AMD was going to suddenly catch up to Intel after a decade behind is not being realistic.

The fact of the matter is AMD is trading blows with a company 10x it's size, and delivering awesome value for customers. How anyone views that as a loss is beyond me.

"Marginal lead" -> 30fps on the 1% lows on a lot of games. More damage control please. 2 weeks ago AMD would obliterate Intel in everything and no one would have any reason to buy Intel anymore.

Where is the 30fps difference?

 

[LogiGaming]

I taste the sweat and fear of INTEL fanboys and stock holders. I read this review on GURU3D and I'm impressed with the performance and yes INTEL squeezes a few frames but it's way more expensive, drinks more electricity runs hotter, poor resale value, and security patches that are added monthly.

Low res and a 2080ti is when you notice AMD is a few FPS short. But who games at 720p and owns an Nvidia 2080ti? Sorry INTEL your thunder has been stolen from AMD.

You should scroll up and see 1440p benchmarks on this review, I´m sure you didn´t

 

[Markoni35]

Intel is still faster in gaming for 2 reasons:

1. Intel CPUs have a slightly higher clock. Which wouldn't be that important, if it wasn't for this second point below...

2. Games are still very poorly programmed. Most of them don't use multiple threads. Yes, in the year 2019. That's how crappy they are. Reminds me of the days of DOS gaming, when some games didn't use GPU. It didn't matter how much money you spent on the GPU when the stupid game used CPU for rendering. We have a similar situation today with multi-threading. Hardware is getting more and more advanced, while programmers are crappier and lazier every day. Those who know how to parallelize workload can ask for astronomical salaries.

But if you're gaming and AT THE SAME TIME doing something else in the background, AMD should be the winner. Let's say you're zipping/unzipping/backuping files in the background, or recompressing a video, while at the same time playing your favorite game in the foreground.

It would be cool to measure the gaming performance while capturing gameplay and compressing it to a video file. Or while streaming the gameplay on Twitch. That's my benchmarking suggestion for all the streamers out there.

 

[Indekkusu]

Yay, I can finally side grade my 7700K to a 3700x and get about the same performance. At least I can stop worrying about the Intel problems with meltdown, spectre etc.

 

[Indekkusu]

It is good to see AMD crack the 140 point single core barrier for the firs time:
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-7700K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-3700X/3647vs4043