4GHz CPU Battle: Ryzen 3900X vs. 3700X vs. Core i9-9900K

[pit1209]

Now that AMD has accomplished parity with Intel and is even better at multi-threaded work every guy and his dog is an enthusiast gamer that cares so much about 5% difference FPS that they're willing to spend hundreds more while taking more heat and energy consumption. No wonder Intel took us all for granted since 10 years ago while laughing behind our backs.

 

[mosu]

Thank you Steven, this is the piece I was waiting for.

 

[Peter Sky]

Can anyone on this planet Earth test new 3900X / 3700X @4.3GHz or any max achievable vs 8700K / 9900K @4.9-5GHz (I.e. what people realistically use)? Because I've never seen any single person using 8700K / 9900K @4GHz.

I think you don't quite get the idea behind these tests. In this article they don't care about OC. They are trying to see the actual power of the chips when everything is as even as they can possibly make it. Intel has been working on these same chips on 14nm processes for almost a decade. That gives them a huge advantage over a company launching their very first MONTH of working with their 14nm process. And if you know the history of both Intel and AMD, both of them have had to decrease frequencies of their processors when moving to new smaller processes. So while it is amazing that AMD was actually able to increase their frequencies for the first time after moving to a brand new smaller process wafer (7nm), it will be a while before they work out many of the kinks, and are able to increase voltage without crazy heating problems. Of course, not having off-center coolers is killing them as well. But the point is, until they are able to work out some kinks, this is the only way we can see the "real" strength of the these chips head to head under the MOST fair and balanced conditions. And the third gen Ryzens pretty much dragged the Intel chips!!!! Imagine in a few months time when we get new firmware and bios upgrades how strong these chips are going to be!!!!

 

[Peter Sky]

Can anyone on this planet Earth test new 3900X / 3700X @4.3GHz or any max achievable vs 8700K / 9900K @4.9-5GHz (I.e. what people realistically use)? Because I've never seen any single person using 8700K / 9900K @4GHz.

This test is pointless, its like handing capping a corvette to 4 cylinders and testing against a honda civic.

These tests are NOT pointless. You just aren't thinking clearly enough about them to understand it. These tests are excellent to show core for core the actual head to head strength of these chips. It makes perfect sense.

 

[Peter Sky]

I like the comparison, it shows that if you retard Intel's chips, you will be down to Ryzen performance levels. It also shows that the IPC difference, while a huge upgrade for AMD, is still inferior to Intel's in many tests/categories.
The AIDA64 cache and latency tests are quite interesting, amazing the 9900K is still taking the cake here while being held back.

The 9900K also takes the first place in Far Cry New Dawn, beating the 3900X by a 5% margin for the average frame rate, and 10% for the 1% low result. This is while running at a frequency lower than out of the box.

This puts to bed the idea that Ryzen would be faster at the same clocks.
It's performance is not any better, and actually is still a little slower at the same clock speeds, so Intel's architecture for many uses is still superior.
We all know that from a gaming standpoint, without being retarded, its much faster...crazy its still faster while being retarded.
The 9900K puts a whooping on the 3700X before its overclocked, and the 8700K can easily beat a 9900K when overclocked. When I said the 3700K would only be able to match a STOCK, old $200 7700K in games, I didn't think I would be right on the money.

I don't know what article you read, but it wasn't this one. First, BOTH chips were held back, not just the Intel chip, and the Ryzen more so, as it lost four cores on different chiplets. This is a big handicap for Ryzen. But the Zen 2 IPC was better than Intel in almost every test. So I think you misread something somewhere. And the Zen 2 chips easily beat the 9900k in almost everything. In almost every game the results were within the margin of error, and in only one game did the 9900k really stand out. But the ONLY reason games work better for the Intel chips is because they have been optimize for Intel for over a decade. When they found a game that was NOT optimized for Intel, the 3900x beat the 9900k down. And in allllllll of the productivity software, the Intel chips are DOA!!!!

 

[amstech]

No wonder Intel took us all for granted since 10 years ago while laughing behind our backs.

It's not their fault there has been little to no competition, this 3000 series will finally push Intel to do more then just refresh what they have to. It's all pretty exciting and this is a great time to be a PC enthusiast. I think we got used to it being a little one-sided.

even better at multi-threaded work every guy and his dog is an enthusiast gamer that cares so much about 5% difference FPS s.

An overclocked i7 will still net a 10% - 30% gaming advantage across the board.

 

[Evernessince]

They are about even from looking at this review, when you retard the Intel's clockspeed, or match them to Ryzen's. AMD's IPC tech has caught up, matched or edged Intel's based on the results shown here, I am not afraid to admit it, good for AMD its a strong showing.
The architecture is still limited to around 4.0GHz, maybe a few hundred MHZ more, which was attainable 10 years ago by Intel chips.

They are about even? AMD is beating Intel in IPC by 9% in cinebench. Funny, given you are on every other techspot thead touting Intel's absolutely superior 3.2% gaming performance yet 9% for AMD doesn't even register.

Hmm..

The charts themselves speak for that the IPC of the new Ryzen is significantly hanging from 9900k.

They are about even from looking at this review, when you retard the Intel's clockspeed, or match them to Ryzen's. AMD's IPC tech has caught up, matched or edged Intel's based on the results shown here, I am not afraid to admit it, good for AMD its a strong showing.
The architecture is still limited to around 4.0GHz, maybe a few hundred MHZ more, which was attainable 10 years ago by Intel chips.

The tone you wrote with the message very clearly shows that you are an Intel freak and even if the charts tell you the obvious

The charts show that at the same clock speeds, or when you retard the Intel chips the performance is very close. They also show the Intel chips creeping ahead in games still.
We all know at stock clocks or when overclocked, the Intel chips are much faster.
For the clockspeed though, Ryzens performance is impressive.
But they don't go anywhere near 5.0-5.3GHz, and this is still a major disadvantage.

So yeah, I think AMD is well aware of the trade-offs they made with their architecture and really, gaming performance is so good nowadays that one should choose 9900K only to brag that they get 260FPS in one game compared to 240FPS with Ryzen. I can't see this as a cons for not choosing Ryzen...

If gaming on a high refresh rate monitor, you will need everything you can get.
From a gaming perspective, the difference is still noticeable - significant.
Here are a few examples from the 3700X review, posting min/max frames, all CPU's obviously at stock clocks.

Hitman 2
9900K = 89/119
3700X = 83/111

World War Z
9900K = 123/151
3700X = 111/135

Far Cry New Dawn
9900K = 96/123
3700X = 88/112

The Division
9900K = 108/172
3700X = 107/158

Shadows Of The Tomb Raider
9900K = 89/123
3700X = 72/102

Battlefield 5
9900K = 125/168
3700X = 107/155

Total War: Three Kingdoms
9900K = 107/128
3700X = 106/123

Ryzen has closed the gap, and they are no doubt a very capable and good performing CPU for PC gaming enthusiasts. But if your running an 8700K @ 5.2GHz, when it comes to gaming, your leaving Ryzen in the dust. Can you see that con? Lol.

1. Both chips are being reduced to 4.0 GHz. Intel drops from 5.0 GHz and AMD 4.6 GHz.
2. Dropping to 4 GHz made very little difference in the actual performance of games tested here. In fact it clearly illustrates that performance is more attributable to architecture then frequency past a certain point.

Can't see any con still. Don't tell me that you will be able to discerne 168FPS compared to 155FPS during battlefield 5, cause otherwise you are lying to yourself. Sure, in your head there will be that difference, but in the real world it's just too small to count. And lets not forget that the majority of users are not the 240Hz paranoid gamer type..

Your exaggerated metaphor is useless here.
Using a 240Hz and 168FPS example does nothing to backup your comment, or combat mine. 15-20FPS difference is major at 1440p, and that's before overlocking.
We are talking about these GPU's struggling to hit over 100FPS in games @ 1440p, so when you have a 1440p 120/144/165hz monitor, this is huge.
Again, Ryzen is not doing bad at all in this comparison, but Intel is better.

This test clearly shows that certain games are rigged to perform worse on AMD chips.

I think it has more to do with how most game engines are coded and what instruction sets they use.

The 3900X is 2.3% slower at 1440p: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-9-3900x/16.html

Facts

Now that AMD has accomplished parity with Intel and is even better at multi-threaded work every guy and his dog is an enthusiast gamer that cares so much about 5% difference FPS that they're willing to spend hundreds more while taking more heat and energy consumption. No wonder Intel took us all for granted since 10 years ago while laughing behind our backs.

It's not even a 5% difference. I can understand wanting the best gaming performance at the ultra high end but Intel is most certainly not the best choice for all gamers.

 

[amstech]

T
The 3900X is 2.3% slower at 1440p: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-9-3900x/16.html
It's not even a 5% difference. I can understand wanting the best gaming performance at the ultra high end but Intel is most certainly not the best choice for all gamers.

An overclocked i7 will still net a 10% - 30% gaming advantage across the board.
If gaming on a high refresh rate monitor, you will need everything you can get.
From a gaming perspective, the difference is still noticeable - significant.
Here are a few examples from the 3700X review, posting min/max frames, all CPU's obviously at stock clocks.

Hitman 2
9900K = 89/119
3700X = 83/111

World War Z
9900K = 123/151
3700X = 111/135

Far Cry New Dawn
9900K = 96/123
3700X = 88/112

The Division
9900K = 108/172
3700X = 107/158

Shadows Of The Tomb Raider
9900K = 89/123
3700X = 72/102

Battlefield 5
9900K = 125/168
3700X = 107/155

Total War: Three Kingdoms
9900K = 107/128
3700X = 106/123

Ryzen has closed the gap, and they are no doubt a very capable and good performing CPU for PC gaming enthusiasts. But if your running an 8700K/9700 or 9900k @ 5.0 - 5.3GHz, when it comes to gaming, your leaving Ryzen in the dust.

 

[mosu]

This test clearly shows that certain games are rigged to perform worse on AMD chips. The only honestly made game here seems to be World of Tanks. The rest of the AAA games seem to be in bed with Intel.

Because there is no other explanation how can a chip running at the same clock, with a higher IPC, and same instruction set, be faster in all standard tests, but slower in selected games. There's no overclock, there's no cores running faster, everything is the same and only IPC counts.

That means the game is corrupt. It detects the AMD CPU and deliberately slows down. Nasty, very nasty. Foul play, Intel. The question is, how low can Intel go? Instead of spending money on improving their chips, especially security, they've spend all the money on bribing game producers. One more reason not to buy hardware from those cheaters.

Not to mention that Intel chips have more security holes than Swiss cheese. I guess they spent entire budget on bribing game producers. There was no money left for fixing the bugs. Wait... is it possible that Intel experts designed firmware for Boeing 737 MAX??

Even if you're right about Intel's way of doing business, no one can ignore the better latency of Intel's chips, by the way the ring bus was nicked from AMD and they paid over one billion $ for it. Things would eventually change when the number of cores will increase.

 

[Evernessince]

An overclocked i7 will still net a 10% - 30% gaming advantage across the board.
If gaming on a high refresh rate monitor, you will need everything you can get.
From a gaming perspective, the difference is still noticeable - significant.
Here are a few examples from the 3700X review, posting min/max frames, all CPU's obviously at stock clocks.

Hitman 2
9900K = 89/119
3700X = 83/111

World War Z
9900K = 123/151
3700X = 111/135

Far Cry New Dawn
9900K = 96/123
3700X = 88/112

The Division
9900K = 108/172
3700X = 107/158

Shadows Of The Tomb Raider
9900K = 89/123
3700X = 72/102

Battlefield 5
9900K = 125/168
3700X = 107/155

Total War: Three Kingdoms
9900K = 107/128
3700X = 106/123

Ryzen has closed the gap, and they are no doubt a very capable and good performing CPU for PC gaming enthusiasts. But if your running an 8700K/9700 or 9900k @ 5.0 - 5.3GHz, when it comes to gaming, your leaving Ryzen in the dust.

"10% - 30% gaming advantage across the board."

Let's see a source on that one.

From what I've seen on GamersNexus and their recent comparison of a 3900X vs a 5.1 GHz 9900K, the 9900K hardly benefits from an overclock at all in a vast majority of games.

As the results from this article show, past a certain point frequency doesn't have as big an impact. Architecture clearly plays a big roles, something that can't be improves with an overclock.

 

[Peter Sky]

Maybe in gaming there are a few fps differences, but Techspot is not a portal for gamers, but for computer enthusiasts who want to have as much computing power (mathematical) as possible at their fingertips. And the new Ryzen perform a lot more calculations per second from 9900K. In other words, Ryzen has a lot more FLOPS considering the entire processor. And this fascinates enthusiasts, not a few fps difference in games, coming only from a little less delay between the memory controller and RAM.

Ok some examples without lowering clocks, with AGESA 1.0.0.2 and old drivers for chipset on Ryzen>

Movie encoding (X264)
9900K 4.7-5Ghz 135 vs 118 (Ryzen 7 3700X 3.6-4.4)

Handbrake H265 (less is better)
380 vs 327

Adobe Premiere PRO 2019 (lees is better)
116 vs 108

DaVinci Resolve (less is better)
95 vs 87 (less is better)

Stockfish 10
23703 vs 24662 (more is better)

simulation y-crusher
58 vs 49 (less is better)

OpenFOAM / XiFoam
580 vs 420 (less is better)

Javascript
46208 vs 52725 (more is better)

Here you get results without any degradation in performance of 9900k / without power choke 9900k. And you see who has more computing power. And since Ryzen 9 3900X is a direct market competitor of 9900K (since intel has a much higher clock, a direct competitor may have a higher other parameter, and at a lower price - a larger number of cores), 33% can be added to the above Ryzen results. And who is the KING OF POWER?

Thank you. Finally, someone commenting and make complete sense. I just can't stand all the Intel worshipers. I almost vomited after reading one post from the guy who says he's rich because he builds computers. Lol. I didn't believe a single thing he wrote. But it was nauseating just reading his reply.
But so many people on this thread miss so many points. First, these Zen 2 chips are brand new tech. And it always takes a while to get drivers, firmware and bios updates correct for brand new chips, especially when they are cutting edge process wafers. The bios these chips and many of the chip-sets on these mobo's are running on are unstable and unrefined at the moment. And this has been the case in all previous generations as well. My gen 1 Ryzen chip was a monster four months down the road from the day I got it. So when these chips are retested down the road several months, we will see a huge improvement. But for their relatively brand new situation, they are performing excellent! One last thing, until the Off-center coolers are put out, there will continue to be a problem with heat, when trying to increase voltage. Which is one of the reasons they will not OC very much right now.
What I saw in these tests, was the 3900x and even the 3700x handing the 9900k its lunch!!!!

 

[amstech]

L

"10% - 30% gaming advantage across the board.".

It's 5-30FPS faster across many titles, and this is only 5.1GHz.
Thats on top of already being faster in stock form.
So, in total, about 10-30% faster across the board, give or take.
I am not arguing anything but, Intel is still the fastest gaming CPU, and by a noticable margin when overclocked. It's not all just 5%, sorry.
Congrats to Ryzen for making it a very competitive race, and for a great dispute.
Some people may be happy with 105FPS compared to a 122FPS.
Not me. I want the 122, and then 128 when overclocked...and so do many gaming enthusiasts.
Also your reach for the 3900X to save you is cute, its a $500 CPU, costs more then the 9900K and doesn't game as well, and doesn't overclock nearly as well.... guess thats 'niche' Thing will rip good in WinRaR though, thats important for 15% of us. Kidding.
But for games Intel>AMD. The end.

 

[Peter Sky]

Why are so many people missing the point of doing these tests? They were done to determine how the architectural differences affect different workloads. And now we know what to expect in the future:

• AMD current tech will never catch Intel in games if you're using a high-end (~$500+) graphics card
• Intel will not catch AMD in multicore productivity apps until they get a consumer 10 core chip (which may not be a ring bus chip)

In 2 years this may change but I assume AMD stays with it's current tech and thus latency will continue to be an issues, so no change in high-end gaming. Maybe Intel will split their architectures for consumer-level CPUs. Stay with 8 to 10-core ring bus chips for gaming and good productivity, and then use mesh for 12-16 core to keep up with AMD but use them on consumer-class mobos for great productivity and slightly lower performance gaming.

You are soooooooo wrong!!!! Just look at how much the Ryzen processors have caught up to Intel's best over the last two to three years. Never catch up? They've already caught and surpassed them. The ONLY thing the antiquated Intel chips can do is a few fps more in """""Games""""". And those few fps more they do get, CANNOT actually be seen on the screen during game play, but only on the benchmark results.
So if getting a riser over a few numbers on a benchmark is your thing, by all means, go spend twice as much on old Intel chips. But in all around performance, these Zen 2 chips outclass the Intel's best easily. And all the Intel disciples are just suffering from buyers remorse.

 

[Tristann]

I had to go back to the 3700X review to refresh my memory on the productivity benchmarks, because I honestly don't give a damn about exporting video file speed, file zipping and other useless nonsense like WinRAR. God if I ever use that in an argument to say a chip is better, please shoot me.
Any 6/12 chip+ these days has decent - very good multi-functional processing and computational power. Who cares about saving a few seconds here and there when zipping a file or converting a video....Cmon.
.

The results I threw were from real tests, not from benchmarks. New Ryzens offer better performance, save time on every mouse click and computer reaction in each system operation. It saves a lot of time after 8 hours of working with the computer, and when operations requiring more from the processor are performed by a dozen or so percent faster than Intel, The savings of time every day are considerable. Whether it's file operations, application loading, or different background processes, it's all smoother at Ryzen 3000. You've probably seen tests when the player play with streaming, and how it looked on Intel and AMD. It was impossible to play on Intel, and no problem on AMD

It's really not worth looking at 5% more FPS on the expensive price and the already outdated Intel platform. In the next 2-3 months will come out better BIOSes, better AGESAs, better optimized for AMD updates for Windows and games, better optimized drivers for graphics cards, and AMD will develop wings also in games.

 

[Vulcanproject]

AMD delivered the IPC gain I expected but not the clockspeeds I hoped for. Another couple hundred megahertz would have mega hurt Intel in gaming.

So it wasn't meant to be, Intel still sneaks ahead in gaming but it is at a point now where for the majority it doesn't matter.

I don't care really about 150FPS, I don't feel like I am a competitive gamer. I feel realistically a better gamer will trash you playing at 60FPS, no matter what frames you have. I'm totally happy with 60-70FPS in all my games. Joyous in fact.

However I am under no illusion that retaining this fastest gaming CPU title has a noticeable halo effect on the brand. AMD haven't quite overturned it to take away that golden goose.

For all intents and purposes the vast majority of gamers don't need the extra 5 percent or whatever you will get with the best Intel parts. But they will still want Intel, because they still perceive it to be better. Technically it is, practically it isn't. Getting that message across is hard.

 

[Peter Sky]

It's not their fault there has been little to no competition, this 3000 series will finally push Intel to do more then just refresh what they have to. It's all pretty exciting and this is a great time to be a PC enthusiast. I think we got used to it being a little one-sided.
An overclocked i7 will still net a 10% - 30% gaming advantage across the board.

How can you say it isn't Intel's fault there has been no competition???? It definitely IS their fault. They were the ones getting caught doing payoffs to major manufacturers not to buy AMD!!! And they got punished for it, but it didn't help AMD recover. Intel did tons of illegal and slimy business practices to try to KILL AMD as a company. Where were you when all of this was reported back in the early 2000's??? Intel is almost twenty times the size of AMD, and they tried every underhanded tactic to kill AMD when they couldn't deal with AMD out-competing them head to head. And now AMD learned from that, and came back with a vengence!!!! What the tiny little AMD has done to industry GIANT Intel over the past two to three years is nothing short of miraculous!!!! And if you can't see past the end of your own nose, let me lay it out for you. AMD has snatched gigantic chunks of the server space from Intel. They are beating Intel in the consumer space all of the sudden. They just TOOK the supercomputing contract from Intel, and have run Intel right out of the console space. Now they are setting their sights on the enthusiast space, and have made leaps and bounds over the last few years. It will only get worse for Intel before it even starts to get better...

 

[amstech]

It's really not worth looking at 5% more FPS

Agreed, but its 10-30% across the board when the Intel is overclocked.
You can keep spouting the 5%, but thats not accurate.
The 9700K is about as fast or faster then the 9900K in games and costs $350 but I used the 9900K to show the comparison of an 8/16 vs an 8/16.

There's a 15-20FPS difference, and sometimes more, in many games...this is just 7 examples and most importantly, this is Intel @ stock clocks. Add another 10-20FPS when its overclocked.

Hitman 2
9900K = 89/119
3700X = 83/111

World War Z
9900K = 123/151
3700X = 111/135

Far Cry New Dawn
9900K = 96/123
3700X = 88/112

The Division
9900K = 108/172
3700X = 107/158

Shadows Of The Tomb Raider
9900K = 89/123
3700X = 72/102

Battlefield 5
9900K = 125/168
3700X = 107/155

Total War: Three Kingdoms
9900K = 107/128
3700X = 106/123

Also, the 3900X is a $500 CPU, the 9900K games better and is cheaper, before you overclock. I'll admit its platform is a little outdated though.

on the expensive price and the already outdated Intel platform..

Lol, all of Intel's platforms are outdated, its been a copy and paste for awhile.

 

[cliffordcooley]

the already outdated Intel platform.

Lol, all of Intel's platforms are outdated, its been a copy and paste for awhile.

I'm willing to bet Intel is working on changing this. Especially now that AMD is on par and all those vulnerabilities have been found. I'm not ready to jump off the Intel ship just yet. But AMD is certainly enticing.

 

[hahahanoobs]

"The Coffee Lake CPUs certainly have a clock speed advantage out of the box, but that doesn’t necessarily make them the best choice."

It certainly makes it the best choice for the majority. IPC+Clock speed, best combo right? Gamers don't even benefit from more than 8 cores.

Sadly, there are no benchmarks that represent what average consumers actually do on a day-to-day basis.

 

[Lew Zealand]

It's 5-30FPS faster across many titles, and this is only 5.1GHz.
Thats on top of already being faster in stock form.
So, in total, about 10-30% faster across the board, give or take.

At 720p low quality on a 9900K and a 2080Ti.

Do you actually think it's a valid idea to buy a 9900K and a 2080Ti for 720p low? $1700 just for those two components to play at 15 year old settings?

That is not a good way to justify that OC gaming on Intel is better. Worse than the AMD people who constantly bang on about how good their chips are in Cinebench when that happens to be it's most advantageous app.

Try using realistic settings for that setup, 1440p High. Not even 4K Max. There will still be a few fps difference in Intel's OC favor in most games.

720p low, LOL!

 

[darkzelda]

Great article and great processor from AMD, I really want to upgrade soon enough my 4790K to the 3700x perhaps.

 

[retsxel]

These benchmarks are interesting. To me, this definitively proves that clock-for-clock, Zen2(Ryzen3) kicks Intel offerings in the jimmies where IPC is concerned. Very interesting indeed!

 

[Evernessince]

L

It's 5-30FPS faster across many titles, and this is only 5.1GHz.
Thats on top of already being faster in stock form.
So, in total, about 10-30% faster across the board, give or take.
I am not arguing anything but, Intel is still the fastest gaming CPU, and by a noticable margin when overclocked. It's not all just 5%, sorry.
Congrats to Ryzen for making it a very competitive race, and for a great dispute.
Some people may be happy with 105FPS compared to a 122FPS.
Not me. I want the 122, and then 128 when overclocked...and so do many gaming enthusiasts.
Also your reach for the 3900X to save you is cute, its a $500 CPU, costs more then the 9900K and doesn't game as well, and doesn't overclock nearly as well.... guess thats 'niche' Thing will rip good in WinRaR though, thats important for 15% of us. Kidding.
But for games Intel>AMD. The end.

I don't have average numbers and neither does GN but the OC doesn't improve performance that much over stock in many games. They are some games that definitely benefit but there are some that gain just a handful of FPS. I'd say if you were to average all those titles you'd be looking at 6% over stock 9900K and 10%ish over the 3900X.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1255&v=yqQ2X1y0jvw

 

[amghwk]

Good to see the benchmarks were done using the same speed across all CPUs, cores not withstanding.

 

[hahahanoobs]

Everyone's so focused on the 9900K, when you can go with the 9700K that's $100 less than the 3700X and it will crush every Ryzen you can throw at it. And ultimately, what the 9900K can do is more profitable than what Ryzen can do.

TL;DR, "Fastest Gaming CPU", sells more chips than, "Fastest Cinebencher" every day of the week.

I've seen the 3600 with SMT off convincingly beat the 3900X in the same test. That's no consumer flagship. Facts.

Where Ryzen, or Zen for that matter exceeds, is in MT applications, that are unfortunately not presently used by the majority, and in the productivity sector, but with the downside being their company upgrade cycles are longer, especially when it comes to new hardware, even if it is from a familiar face.

Another roadblock is GPU acceleration. Not only is Ryzen up against Intel, but NVIDIA too with CUDA.

I'll wait for Ryzen on 7nm+ before I get excited. Ryzen does nothing for me that Intel doesn't already do better.

 

[Strawman]

Can anyone on this planet Earth test new 3900X / 3700X @4.3GHz or any max achievable vs 8700K / 9900K @4.9-5GHz (I.e. what people realistically use)? Because I've never seen any single person using 8700K / 9900K @4GHz.

I tested on Shadow of the Tomb raider, 8700k @ stock vs 3600 @ stock (4000c17 for the Intel 3600c16 for the Ryzen), at stock the 3600 was a tad bit in front. It was within margin of error. When I oced my 8700@5.1 / 4.7 for the cache then yeah, it was ~20-25% up in minimums / averages and around 30-35 in maximums.