AMD announces Ryzen 9 3900X flagship desktop CPU, Ryzen 7 3800X, more

[m3tavision]

Let's make a simple TL;DR:
1. Intel will still perform slightly better in most games because it can clock/OC higher and generally games are better optimised for it ("slightly" being the keyword and only for the top end 9700K and 9900K if the numbers are real - Steve will help us here).
2. The very small FPS delta will be irrelevant as AMD's MSRP puts it way below Intel's offerings.
3. If multithreading was better on Ryzen 2 then there's no contest with Ryzen 3. Intel is screwed here.
4. The 5GB/s MP600 NVME from Corsair using PCIe 4.0 looks so damn tasty
5. What is the real power usage for that 65W 8c/16t CPU? O_o

I'll play along:

1. AMD is the outright leader in performance and will out perform Intel, per clock. And games will perform better and prefer AMD CPU & motherboards.
2. I agree
3. I agree
4. I agree
5. That is the question, but AMD also has a 105w version too. So the SKU's are very interesting.

 

[Puiu]

I'll play along:

1. AMD is the outright leader in performance and will out perform Intel, per clock. And games will perform better and prefer AMD CPU & motherboards.
2. I agree
3. I agree
4. I agree
5. That is the question, but AMD also has a 105w version too. So the SKU's are very interesting.

Per clock yes, but at 5GHz Intel will still be able to do well in games (an extra 400-500MHz is nothing to scoff at when the IPC is this close). Which is why I mentioned the 9700K and 9900K. Below those 2 CPUs I think only the 8700K will be competitive enough to still get recommended for gaming. It depends on how well AMD does in third party benchmarks and the street pricing. The new 570 chipset mobos don't look cheap

We don't need to hype these CPUs so much. Even if they turn out to be equal or 2-3% slower in games (on average), when compared to the top Intel CPUs they'll still be a much better buy.

 

[m3tavision]

Per clock yes, but at 5GHz Intel will still be able to do well in games (an extra 400-500MHz is nothing to scoff at when the IPC is this close). Which is why I mentioned the 9700K and 9900K. Below those 2 CPUs I think only the 8700K will be competitive enough to still get recommended for gaming. It depends on how well AMD does in third party benchmarks and the street pricing. The new 570 chipset mobos don't look cheap

We don't need to hype these CPUs so much. Even if they turn out to be equal or 2-3% slower in games (on average), when compared to the top Intel CPUs they'll still be a much better buy.

Agree.
But would like to add, that we don't know the memory freq yet, or how well Zen2 (@7nm) overclocks. But I suspect these motherboard manufacturers didn't go this crazy and this BEEFY... if Zen2 didn't like overlocking.

 

[amstech]

Until I see a complete review I am withholding judgement.
It is exciting but AMD are notorious for showcasing a few cherry picked benchmarks during announcements/reveals.
I really like the Ryzen 3700X with the 8/16, be sweet if it can hit 5.0GHz 24/7 (I get how strong it will be @ 4.5GHz with its architecture).... $400 is what I paid for my now 10 year old i7 930 still cranking at 4.0GHz 24/7, and this is basically double the CPU for the same price, 10 years later. Also, here's hoping the i9-9900KS price isn't silly, as I love that chip already too.

 

[JakeAndrew77]

Looks like something happened to the 16/32 3.3s. Made more evident by the 3700x/3800x both being 8/16s. Probably couldnt get the yields to a high enough stock. Should have just stuck to the original names. 3700/3700x 8/16s, 3800 12/24.

I do not believe that is the case. It is believed to be that the 16/32 core will be released at a later time for a premium price.

 

[EEatGDL]

I'll play along:
5. That is the question, but AMD also has a 105w version too. So the SKU's are very interesting.

Per clock yes, but at 5GHz Intel will still be able to do well in games (an extra 400-500MHz is nothing to scoff at when the IPC is this close). Which is why I mentioned the 9700K and 9900K. Below those 2 CPUs I think only the 8700K will be competitive enough to still get recommended for gaming. It depends on how well AMD does in third party benchmarks and the street pricing. The new 570 chipset mobos don't look cheap

We don't need to hype these CPUs so much. Even if they turn out to be equal or 2-3% slower in games (on average), when compared to the top Intel CPUs they'll still be a much better buy.

I would reserve a wide judgement until we get some deep-dive benchmarks, not far away from now. I mean, what we saw in the presentation is a good starting point, enough to be optimistic and IPC is just a part of the performance multiplier. 7nm shortens the paths and that inherently brings higher performance. I was in a conference with Bob Swan last Friday and he acknowledged TSMC's 7nm is very close to Intel's 10nm --we already knew that--, but something very interesting that he added: Intel's 10nm brings a scaling factor of 2.8, instead of 2, when compared to 14nm+++++++. So if TSMC's 7nm is in that playground already, we're taking of a scaling factor > 2 compared to what Intel has in the market and will have until next year.

By the time Icelake comes out [still a Skylake-based CPU, just shrunk], AMD will be launching Zen 3 with possible support for DDR5.

Recap:
* AMD first to Intel-equivalent 10nm
* AMD first to PCIe 4.0
* AMD potentially first to DDR5

 

[Adi6293]

Don't see the value in the 3800X at all. Positioned too close in performance for a lot higher TDP. Maybe for $30 more, not $70 and where I live that $70 will be more like $150.

The deliberately made it bad value so you either pick 3700X or go all out for the 3900X, clever tactic

 

[Lew Zealand]

Until I see a complete review I am withholding judgement.
It is exciting but AMD are notorious for showcasing a few cherry picked benchmarks during announcements/reveals.
I really like the Ryzen 3700X with the 8/16, be sweet if it can hit 5.0GHz 24/7 (I get how strong it will be @ 4.5GHz with its architecture)....

There seems to be no chance that a Ryzen rated to 4.5GHz one core turbo will reach 5.0 GHz on all cores. The 2700X does 4.3 GHz on one core and I haven't read of anyone getting much past that number on all 8 cores without LN2. Sure, the 7nm process could change that somewhat, but based on the past 2.5 years of Ryzens there's no reason to expect anything past all core 4.5 GHz on standard coolers.

People already set themselves up for disappointment with the Adored TV imaginaRyzens with a $99 6 core R3 (actually a $199 R5) and 5GHz for $330 (vaporware). Don't do that to yourself again.

 

[Cooe14]

I find this announcement exciting, although others may find it ho-hum. AMD, with 7nm parts from TSMC, has achieved, finally, full parity (and then some) with Intel... 14nm chips. So if cost is no object, but you want the absolute best, I suppose you can be confident that Intel, with its 10nm lineup, will blow AMD out of the water. (Or were some of the comparisons with 10nm chips from Intel? Even so, I doubt Intel will have to exert itself much to soon surpass AMD in performance.)

I'm still excited, because I want value for my money. Before, AMD was too far behind Intel in some key areas, such as floating-point muscle. Now, it's time to take the plunge and upgrade my old system.

Uhh... Intel's 10nm process isn't supposed to come to the desktop till late 2020 at the EARLIEST, so yeah.... no. Intel's got nothing but Comet Lake which is just a 10-core 14nm Coffee Lake coming late this year, which will likely require more power than you can imagine.

 

[LogiGaming]

They barely beat Intel with rather mature 7nm node while Intel has taken antiquated 14nm and milked everything it had and then some. Once they launch high performance desktop chips on 10nm, I see them mopping the floor with Zen tbh. Only time will tell.

I assure you no zen2 chip will beat a 9700k/9900k overclocked at 5,2ghz. Those comparasions are stock. This is why Intel is releasing a 5ghz all core 9900ks.

Tbh this is nothing revolutionary. Amd finally reached skylake speeds after 5 years. For 7nm this is rather unimpressive

You are assuring us of nothing, other than you have not even read, or watched the keynote today.
Those comparisons are stock for a reason, did you happen to note that the Ryzen beat those chips already in a live demo? With less power and costing half as much..?
Or are you just here talking derp, because you cheerlead for intel and can't even bother to read what is going on, or how efficient Zen2 is, or how PCIe 4.0 offers twice the bandwidth as Intel's offerings.

It is utterly ignorant to think a 7nm 105w Ryzen 3900x at 4.9ghz (w/ better performance than Intel's own 12c/24t CPU -per live demo)… can't be overclocked to 5.2ghz...?

Making your whole "Intel is still be better because" argument^ (above).... completely moot..!


AMD here has a win/win. The whole X570 ecosystem, outperformance Intel's HEDT.

I also noticed how AMD only shown comparasion graphs in gaming, compared to ZEn+ and not Intel. If my company had better gaming results than the rival I would spam those graphs left and right when trying to promote my product. That shows something. All they shown was a pubg video, a game that hits a certain framerate wall and won´t go past there no matter what you do, even at 480p + 2080ti.

If zen 2 could beat Intel in gaming, they would show it, just like they did with cinebench. Simple maths.

 

[Lionvibez]

Wow the denial coming from the intel fan boys on this site is hilarious.

I'm waiting for the reviews to be out in July before I jump but I'm looking forward to going Zen 2 on a new build.

So the AdoredTV leaks were fake all along. Can I just say "I told you so"?

lol do you want a medal? cause I can tell you right now you are getting nothing for this genius revelation

 

[pcnthuziast]

Commented, went to sleep, woke up and saw my dose of truth made some people salty. Good times indeed and I'm not a fanboy, just a realist.

 

[Linux7055]

So the AdoredTV leaks were fake all along. Can I just say "I told you so"?

I knew it was a lie all along. 16c/32t for $450 is definitely too good to be true and not profitable for AMD.

 

[Lionvibez]

4. The 5GB/s MP600 NVME from Corsair using PCIe 4.0 looks so damn tasty

I've seen alot of people wetting their pants over these new PCIe 4.0 NVME drives.

However unless you have another drive in your system you can push these speeds to it won't make much of a difference.

You will see the numbers in benchmarking apps and that's about it.

 

[stevae]

I dont see anything to jump up n down over. Their 3700X is the same as Intels i7 9700K. The 3800X is the same as i9 9900K.
Other than price, everything else seems the same so far, AMD is finally competing so in time maybe things overall will get better for cpus.
Although I dont see AMD taking over or dethroning Intel anytime soon. Especially with a lot users loyal to Intel.
Will be a interesting summer.

I'm sure you don't. Because you seem to ignore all of the relevant factors. Clock speed is NOT the end all be all of processors. There's efficiency, how efficient Zen2 is, or how PCIe 4.0 offers two times the bandwidth as Intel's offerings. What about the 7nm form factor? A 105w Ryzen 3900x at 4.9ghz is enough to get "most knowledgeable" people very excited. And you must really be a halfwit if you think users are loyal to Intel. Who would be loyal to a company who screwed everyone over for almost a decade, because of their monopoly??? ONLY an ***** would be loyal to Intel. In fact, statistics show a huge chunk of the user base has switched to AMD already. And that was with chips that didn't even perform up to Intel's standard, albeit for a lot cheaper. The point is this, NOW AMD is putting out processors that not only perform just as well as Intel's best chips, but even better in some regards. And they do it with less power needed (not as much heat), with more bandwidth and AT HALF THE PRICE!!! So yeah, no need to jump up and down over this... Lol. Really?

 

[Babbel13]

I dont see anything to jump up n down over. Their 3700X is the same as Intels i7 9700K. The 3800X is the same as i9 9900K.
Other than price, everything else seems the same so far, AMD is finally competing so in time maybe things overall will get better for cpus.
Although I dont see AMD taking over or dethroning Intel anytime soon. Especially with a lot users loyal to Intel.

Will be a interesting summer.

Remember that Intel is recommending that the Hyper threading on their cores be shut off. While this doesn't affect games much it lowers performance about 30 to 40% for computing. https://www.techspot.com/article/1850-how-screwed-is-intel-no-hyper-threading/

 

[LogiGaming]

I dont see anything to jump up n down over. Their 3700X is the same as Intels i7 9700K. The 3800X is the same as i9 9900K.
Other than price, everything else seems the same so far, AMD is finally competing so in time maybe things overall will get better for cpus.
Although I dont see AMD taking over or dethroning Intel anytime soon. Especially with a lot users loyal to Intel.
Will be a interesting summer.

I'm sure you don't. Because you seem to ignore all of the relevant factors. Clock speed is NOT the end all be all of processors. There's efficiency, how efficient Zen2 is, or how PCIe 4.0 offers two times the bandwidth as Intel's offerings. What about the 7nm form factor? A 105w Ryzen 3900x at 4.9ghz is enough to get "most knowledgeable" people very excited. And you must really be a halfwit if you think users are loyal to Intel. Who would be loyal to a company who screwed everyone over for decades, because of their monopoly??? ONLY an ***** would be loyal to Intel. In fact, statistics show a huge chunk of the user base has switched to AMD already. And that was with chips that didn't even perform up to Intel's standard, albeit for a lot cheaper. The point is this, NOW AMD is putting out processors that not only perform just as well as Intel's best chips, but even better in some regards. And they do it with less power needed, with more bandwidth and AT HALF THE PRICE!!! So yeah, no need to jump up and down over this... Lol. Really?

I am loyal to performance, and as a high refresh gamer, Intel still delivers more performance. When AMD can be superior to Intel on that department I switch. This launch is nothing special, apart from the 12 core CPU for mainstream, wich is big news and obliterates anything Intel has to offer with such high core count. The other products are meh, nothing new. My 9700k is flying at 5,2ghz and will sitll remain king for my personal usage.

AMD finally can match Skylake performance from 4 years ago, that´s it. That kind of performance is nothing new to me, might be new for low budget users that had Bulldozer or Zen+.

 

[Lew Zealand]

Clock speed is NOT the end all be all of processors.

True. Some people are still a little thick, though...

There's efficiency, how efficient Zen2 is,

Irrelevant. Vast majority don't care.

or how PCIe 4.0 offers two times the bandwidth as Intel's offerings

Mostly irrelvant. Vast majority of PCIe bus devices are not restricted by it's speed. Overall PC speed will not increase noticeably for the vast majority of users, but probably nice for the future.

What about the 7nm form factor?

Completely irrlelvant. 7mn is a technology means to an end but itself offers nothing.

A 105w Ryzen 3900x at 4.9ghz is enough to get "most knowledgeable" people very excited.

Nonexistent. I see no 4.9 GHz Ryzen in AMD's product stack.

And you must really be a halfwit if you think users are loyal to Intel. Who would be loyal to a company who screwed everyone over for decades, because of their monopoly??? ONLY an ***** would be loyal to Intel.

There are a few here who are loyal to Intel. As of now Intel still gets you the highest framerates in games and this is a gamer's site. Hopefully Ryzen 3xxx matches or surpasses Intel as competition benefits everyone, but that continues to be wishful thinking until I see Steve's blue bars.

In fact, statistics show a huge chunk of the user base has switched to AMD already. And that was with chips that didn't even perform up to Intel's standard, albeit for a lot cheaper. The point is this, NOW AMD is putting out processors that not only perform just as well as Intel's best chips, but even better in some regards. And they do it with less power needed, with more bandwidth and AT HALF THE PRICE!!! So yeah, no need to jump up and down over this... Lol. Really?

People switch to AMD because they offer more value. They don't need to outperform Intel, they just need to out-value them. As Steve says: there are no bad products, only bad prices. If AMD performance matches Intel, they still need to push the value as that's what people expect. Same performance for 10% less $, maybe 30% less $? Sign me up.

 

[GregonMaui]

[QUOTE="For the 2000 series, it was extremely efficient until 4GHz after which the voltage needed grew exponentially.[/QUOTE]

exponentially? did you mean dramatically?

 

[texasrattler]

I am loyal to performance, and as a high refresh gamer, Intel still delivers more performance. When AMD can be superior to Intel on that department I switch. This launch is nothing special, apart from the 12 core CPU for mainstream, wich is big news and obliterates anything Intel has to offer with such high core count. The other products are meh, nothing new. My 9700k is flying at 5,2ghz and will sitll remain king for my personal usage.

AMD finally can match Skylake performance from 4 years ago, that´s it. That kind of performance is nothing new to me, might be new for low budget users that had Bulldozer or Zen+.

I am loyal to what works, for me thats Intel. I also have a 9700K @4.9.

 

[texasrattler]

Remember that Intel is recommending that the Hyper threading on their cores be shut off. While this doesn't affect games much it lowers performance about 30 to 40% for computing. https://www.techspot.com/article/1850-how-screwed-is-intel-no-hyper-threading/

That's has no affect on me anyways. I only game with my computer, not work. Also I have a 9700K so it wouldn't matter anyways.

 

[texasrattler]

I'm sure you don't. Because you seem to ignore all of the relevant factors. Clock speed is NOT the end all be all of processors. There's efficiency, how efficient Zen2 is, or how PCIe 4.0 offers two times the bandwidth as Intel's offerings. What about the 7nm form factor? A 105w Ryzen 3900x at 4.9ghz is enough to get "most knowledgeable" people very excited. And you must really be a halfwit if you think users are loyal to Intel. Who would be loyal to a company who screwed everyone over for decades, because of their monopoly??? ONLY an ***** would be loyal to Intel. In fact, statistics show a huge chunk of the user base has switched to AMD already. And that was with chips that didn't even perform up to Intel's standard, albeit for a lot cheaper. The point is this, NOW AMD is putting out processors that not only perform just as well as Intel's best chips, but even better in some regards. And they do it with less power needed, with more bandwidth and AT HALF THE PRICE!!! So yeah, no need to jump up and down over this... Lol. Really?

Nope. It's ok if you do, if you like AMD then go for them. I like Intel.

Don't act like AMD being the first for pcie 4.0 will hold much. Its new tech and will be awhile for that to even be mainstream. Intel will have it's offering by then.
7nm, and? They got it that low and are just now competing with Intels current models. Lets see if that stays true for when Intel brings out their new models.

I don't care what people use or buy, that's on them. Both products, AMD or Intel will be good products for awhile. I am simply saying AMD isn't anything special, maybe for AMD users to them it is because of price or that the performance is finally able to match Intel for the first time in like 2 decades.

Intel screwing people over, dude do you even know how corporate companies work, they all do. AMD would if it could and if it ever takes a dominate lead, they will too. They ALL in it for the MONEY not for you. Kinda the point of business. Everyone pushes the boundaries of laws, some just do it better than others.

 

[Lionvibez]

That's has no affect on me anyways. I only game with my computer, not work. Also I have a 9700K so it wouldn't matter anyways.

You are right it doesn't matter all of you intel guys on coffee lake cpu's this is not an upgrade path for you. This is for everyone else on older hardware plus those that care about security.

 

[texasrattler]

You are right it doesn't matter all of you intel guys on coffee lake cpu's this is not an upgrade path for you. This is for everyone else on older hardware plus those that care about security.

Exactly. Again, I like Intel and all it's problems. Never has caused me any issues. So, why would I care about all that stuff that doesn't affect me any?

What's even funnier is that AMD still can't seem to get over the hump even with Intel having all it's problems.

 

[Puiu]

I've seen alot of people wetting their pants over these new PCIe 4.0 NVME drives.

However unless you have another drive in your system you can push these speeds to it won't make much of a difference.

You will see the numbers in benchmarking apps and that's about it.

It's mostly for bragging rights. It would also finally make sense to move from a sata SSD to NVME as the difference is around 10x I read and write performance.

I do move large files and deal with large archives from time to time. And it will also cut load times if the random 4K read/write is 10x too (together with better latency) noticeably.