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

[Puiu]

Exactly. Again, I like Intel and all it's problems. Never have 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.

What do you mean AMD can't get other the hump? The Ryzen 3000 pretty much makes the entire Intel 9th gen irrelevant with few exceptions. And Intel won't have anything noteworthy for at least a year when AMD will have the 4000 series on the 7nm+ process.

The number of mobos (or other AMD compatible products) from the OEM is a good indication on how good this series is expected to sell and it's crazy what we've seen from them so far. It dwarfs anything dome by them so far with Ryzen 1/2. At launch there should almost 60 mobos, with Asus saying they will have about 30 in their line-up (not all at launch).

 

[texasrattler]

What do you mean AMD can't get other the hump? The Ryzen 3000 pretty much makes the entire Intel 9th gen irrelevant with few exceptions. And Intel won't have anything noteworthy for at least a year when AMD will have the 4000 series on the 7nm+ process.

The number of mobos (or other AMD compatible products) from the OEM is a good indication on how good this series is expected to sell and it's crazy what we've seen from them so far. It dwarfs anything dome by them so far with Ryzen 1/2

LOL 9th gen irrelevant. Nothing more needs to be even said when people talk out their ***.

 

[Markoni35]

Dudes... you're arguing whether 3900x or 9900 is better. Who cares? I won't buy any of those. I'm interested only in the mid-range and upper-mid-range. Just like most of the people. So if AMD beats Intel in price and performance in that segment, then Intel will have to lower their prices. Then AMD may lower their prices even more. That's what I'm interested in. Price wars. Getting a supercomputer on my desk (yes, even Ryzen 5 or Intel i5 qualifies as supercomputer) at a lower price than my previous computer.

Also, you forgot another important issue. Security. With so many security flaws, Intel should be giving their CPUs for free...

 

[poohbear]

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

I'm totally confused. Do you want there to be competition? You're writing as if Intel is and should be king, which it's not because they haven't done crap all since sandy bridge really, and even then the core increases of later 8xxx series were only in response to AMD's Ryzen.

This reminds me of the Athlon 64 days (which pushed Intel to innovate & compete), cause AMD just needs to match Intel at a lower price point to be successful and stimulate a decent response from Intel (which is currently doing horrendous). I'm sure next year and the year after will lead some fantastic breakthroughs as they try to outdo each other, which is really beneficial to all of us tech enthusiasts. Ever since Sandy Bridge there really haven't been that many innovations on the CPU front for desktops, all the focus was on mobile.

 

[Puiu]

LOL 9th gen irrelevant. Nothing more needs to be even said when people talk out their ***.

And why is that? What does the 9th gen offer over Ryzen 3? Is it better? Is it cheaper? Is it more efficient? Is the chipset better?

So far all we know is that the IPC is similar to Intel's so the 9700K and 9900K will still be better for gaming because of the higher clocks (albeit not by much and at a much higher price point anyway). Those are the only 2 SKUs that can still compete with Ryzen 3 and that's only in gaming and after being OCed.

There is no i5 or i3 CPU that I can think of that will be good enough or cheap enough to be something you can recommend.

TL;DR until Intel does some massive price cuts the CPUs are irrelevant (and they still have to deal with the security patches)

 

[treetops]

Ryzen 7 3700X vs. i7-9700K with real-time rendering: The Ryzen 7 3700X offered 1% more single-threaded performance, and 30% more in multi-threaded tests.
Ryzen 7 3800X vs. i9-9900K with PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds gameplay: The Ryzen 7 3800X matched the performance of the i9-9900K.
Ryzen 9 3900X vs. i9-9920X with Blender Render: The Ryzen 9 3900X beat the Intel i9 9920X by more than 16%.
Amd Ryzen 7 3700X $330 intel i7-9700K $410
Amd Ryzen 7 3800X $400 intel 9900k $500
Amd Ryzen 9 3900X $500 intel i9-9920X $1200

Intels the new meg

 

[pcnthuziast]

I'm poor and when your main hobby is pc gaming, it's rough. Competition is great and I am the last person who would ever wanna see there not be any. It happens on many levels too and some, people don't see. In terms of courting consumers to open their wallets, AMD is looking to clean up nicely this year and the 2nd half of 2019 is going to perhaps be their biggest to date. In terms of brute force pushing technology forward and being 1st to market with new standards, they are also looking to helm the remainder of this year at least. In terms of the nuts and bolts of what a chip maker is, Intel still has a better design and better architecture that is nearly a decade old. It took a lot for AMD to close the gap and pull ahead by a small margin and that's certainly impressive. Just took an order of magnitude of innovation on many fronts to achieve and to me, that's a little less impressive. Very good chance I'll buy 1 of these chips and still talk my ish because I can.

 

[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.

Taking over the performance crown in every (or majority of) matchup is 100% worthy to jump up n down with.
Loyal to Intel? Don't be ridiculous. Only people who's never heard of AMD would do that. Common buyers would most likely listen to recommendations from friends/media/computer shopkeepers, and all that wind will blow in AMD's way for the next year at least.

Yeah, I thought that was rich also. Who in the hell would be loyal to Intel, a company that has raked their entire customer base over the coals for decades with ridiculously high prices, all because they manipulated the system to basically kill AMD for almost a decade. But AMD was smart, and developed without publishing anything for almost nine years, and then BOOM, they exploded onto the scene With Ryzen 7, and Intel was caught with their pants down. I really love it. Anyone with any knowledge of this industry would NEVER be loyal to Intel. They are such an ******* company.

 

[Shadowboxer]

Im eagerly awaiting independent testing on this one. AMD havent made too much noise about the IPC improvements, which is all I care about personally. 12 cores is usless to me (and I think most users). I will be genuinely shocked if AMD have actually managed to beat Intel after all these years and failed promises. If I needed a new CPU then its possible that I would be going for an AMD part. Of course if these parts are the real deal then demand for them will go up along with their prices.

Fortunately my Haswell i7 is still running games just fine so I will not be upgrading, however it is now beginning to look like there could potentially be something I can buy thats more than just a few percent faster than what I currently own when it comes to upgrade time.

Oh and I love how this has proven Adored TV wrong, hes so full of crap, I wish people would stop giving him attention.

 

[stevae]

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 just don't get it... AMD is doing this at a much lower price point, and with a lot less power needed. So temps will be much more manageable. Why oh why would you defend a company that has screwed you over for sooooooo long, and pulled some truly Machiavellian crap to try to kill off AMD in early 2000???? Competition is great for the consumer. Yet there you are, trying to defend the company who has had an ill gotten monopoly for a long time.

 

[pcnthuziast]

I didn't defend Intel. At all.

 

[stevae]

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.

Isn't it hilarious how people try to hold onto old tech. They make every excuse in the book, how the old tech is better, and look for any reason to make what they have sound better. Some people just hate change. Anyway, you pretty much smacked him upside the head with logic, reasoning and facts. For anyone paying attention to this industry over the last few years, it's easy to see how AMD is putting their foot in Intel's a$$. And according to what we know about the immediate future, it doesn't look like it will change anytime soon...

 

[Toju Mikie]

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

So are you assuming that these Zen 2 chips will not be able to overclock? Also, what?! I don't see it as a barely beat Intel. Look at those prices, especially looking at the i9-9920x. It wouldn't make any sense to buy that one compared to the $499 AMD when it releases. It would be a waste of money. Yes, time will tell, but we do not yet have enough information to say whether Intel's new chips will "mop the floor" with Zen 2. It might, but before then, most people that are in the market for a new CPU will be looking at price and performance. They will not wait until another Intel CPU comes out.

 

[stevae]

And why is that? What does the 9th gen offer over Ryzen 3? Is it better? Is it cheaper? Is it more efficient? Is the chipset better?

So far all we know is that the IPC is similar to Intel's so the 9700K and 9900K will still be better for gaming because of the higher clocks (albeit not by much and at a much higher price point anyway). Those are the only 2 SKUs that can still compete with Ryzen 3 and that's only in gaming and after being OCed.

There is no i5 or i3 CPU that I can think of that will be good enough or cheap enough to be something you can recommend.

TL;DR until Intel does some massive price cuts the CPUs are irrelevant (and they still have to deal with the security patches)

Don't give them logic, they don't like logic. If they did, they wouldn't be defending Intel, the king of overpricing and security problems. It's funny how these kids entire life revolves around games. They NEVER grew up. I realize this is a gaming site, but there is more to computing than only games. Embarrassing really... If they have a powerful computer, and the only thing they do is play games, then they are too immature to understand all of the benefits to this announcement anyway. I love that AMD is putting their foot in Intel's a$$! And from the looks of it, they will continue to do so for many years to come. They will NOT repeat the same mistake they made back in the late 1990's and early 2000's. Finally, as was already said, allllllll of these huge manufacturers would NOT be making all of these mobo's and drives unless they've seen evidence that these chips are head and shoulders better. They ONLY spend huge money and develop for the best products. I hope to see these same Intel guys on here at the end of the year...

 

[LogiGaming]

Isn't it hilarious how people try to hold onto old tech. They make every excuse in the book, how the old tech is better, and look for any reason to make what they have sound better. Some people just hate change. Anyway, you pretty much smacked him upside the head with logic, reasoning and facts. For anyone paying attention to this industry over the last few years, it's easy to see how AMD is putting their foot in Intel's a$$. And according to what we know about the immediate future, it doesn't look like it will change anytime soon...

You need to ask AMD why they didnt show graphs with gaming comparasions vs Intel then.. only pubg wich is a bottlenecked test like Steven from GamerNexus said. On gaming comparasion graphs they shown Versus Zen+. While on cinebench, rendering etc they shown vs Intel. That alone is enough proof that AMD knows they didn´t surprass Intel in gaming yet. I have enough years dealing with hardware to know how it works.

So you guys coming here and implying AMD finally beat Intel is just ridiculoous because:

1- You have no official benchmarks from independent reviewers

2- AMD refused to show gaming comparasions with Intel, apart from a bottlenecked scenario (pubg, wich hits a certain framerate wall and you won´t go past there, be it with 10ghz CPU or 5ghz)

3- You have no idea how the chips will overclock and AMD didn´t also bother to talk about it, altho they heavily talked about memory overclocking, wich yes, will be good.

So I would say to calm, chill the "f" down, wait for the results and then we can say if Intel is "done" or not. For now as it is, Intel is still king on many tasks you do on your PC, specially high refresh gaming. Will it change? I have no idea, I can only have my opinion/guess and that´s a big no, because 9700k reaches 5ghz-5,2ghz easily and it is a beast in every game.

Wait and see folks, stop fanboying. For now there isn´t clear evidence or sign of AMD beating Intel in games-

Don't give them logic, they don't like logic. If they did, they wouldn't be defending Intel, the king of overpricing and security problems. It's funny how these kids entire life revolves around games. They NEVER grew up. I realize this is a gaming site, but there is more to computing than only games. Embarrassing really... If they have a powerful computer, and the only thing they do is play games, then they are too immature to understand all of the benefits to this announcement anyway. I love that AMD is putting their foot in Intel's a$$! And from the looks of it, they will continue to do so for many years to come. They will NOT repeat the same mistake they made back in the late 1990's and early 2000's. Finally, as was already said, allllllll of these huge manufacturers would NOT be making all of these mobo's and drives unless they've seen evidence that these chips are head and shoulders better. They ONLY spend huge money and develop for the best products. I hope to see these same Intel guys on here at the end of the year...

This whole website runs around gaming. I can´t get your point honestly, what do you want CPUs for? Rendering? Video editing? Do you make a living from it? Cool story bro, get yourself a HEDT platform, be it blue or red, and make all those saved seconds count because you make a living from them, and stop bothering with mainstream platforms. Even AMD calls their new CPU lineup "Gaming CPUs" right? Look at the sliders.

 

[m3tavision]

LOL 9th gen irrelevant. Nothing more needs to be even said when people talk out their ***.

Yes, the 9th gen intel chips are irrelevant!
Understand, that on July 7th, AMD releases a CPU that has better IPC and better multi-threading than Intel. And it is cheaper too..!

Sometimes at half the cost!

 

[LogiGaming]

Yes, the 9th gen intel chips are irrelevant!
Understand, that on July 7th, AMD releases a CPU that has better IPC and better multi-threading than Intel. And it is cheaper too..!

Sometimes at half the cost!

You mean 1% single thread advantage on a cherry picked benchmark that always benefited AMD?

And wich chip will cost half of Intel offering?

And why didn´t they show gaming results like they did with cinebench vs Intel? Hiding something aye?

We all know that if we had a company that made CPUs and they were faster in gaming than your rival, you would never show it on a conference promoting your product. /s

 

[144hzGamer]

Yes, the 9th gen intel chips are irrelevant!
Understand, that on July 7th, AMD releases a CPU that has better IPC and better multi-threading than Intel. And it is cheaper too..!

Sometimes at half the cost!

Ahah irrelevant sure!! Come back when zen2 can reach 5ghz and doesnt suffer from any ccx latencies. Thats why only pubg benchmark on the presentation, why didnt they show fortnite, apex, counter strike or battlefield?? Hmmmmm I know why

 

[m3tavision]

You mean 1% single thread advantage on a cherry picked benchmark that always benefited AMD?

And wich chip will cost half of Intel offering?

And why didn´t they show gaming results like they did with cinebench vs Intel? Hiding something aye?

We all know that if we had a company that made CPUs and they were faster in gaming than your rival, you would never show it on a conference promoting your product. /s

Correct, that is another way of saying that Intel and AMD's IPC is about the same.

If you watched the whole keynote, people would not have to keep explaining things to you. And the questions you keep asking, were answered, so it just that you are feigning ignorance, or just outright calling Dr Su a liar.


Also, (again) because we know by now that you didn't bother to watch the keynote, that AMD didn't show gaming results, because they were not showing Navi results right now... but they did give a live comparison. (That you can watch & see.)

AMD did show their product competing against their rival and clearly showing an equal, or even slightly smoother experience. Just because they didn't release exact values and you are disgruntled doesn't mean you can go on blathering like an dolt.

Go watch the video of intel getting destroyed by a chip that cost half as much and uses 65w.

 

[treetops]

Isn't it hilarious how people try to hold onto old tech. They make every excuse in the book, how the old tech is better, and look for any reason to make what they have sound better. Some people just hate change. Anyway, you pretty much smacked him upside the head with logic, reasoning and facts. For anyone paying attention to this industry over the last few years, it's easy to see how AMD is putting their foot in Intel's a$$. And according to what we know about the immediate future, it doesn't look like it will change anytime soon...

You need to ask AMD why they didnt show graphs with gaming comparasions vs Intel then.. only pubg wich is a bottlenecked test like Steven from GamerNexus said. On gaming comparasion graphs they shown Versus Zen+. While on cinebench, rendering etc they shown vs Intel. That alone is enough proof that AMD knows they didn´t surprass Intel in gaming yet. I have enough years dealing with hardware to know how it works.

So you guys coming here and implying AMD finally beat Intel is just ridiculoous because:

1- You have no official benchmarks from independent reviewers

2- AMD refused to show gaming comparasions with Intel, apart from a bottlenecked scenario (pubg, wich hits a certain framerate wall and you won´t go past there, be it with 10ghz CPU or 5ghz)

3- You have no idea how the chips will overclock and AMD didn´t also bother to talk about it, altho they heavily talked about memory overclocking, wich yes, will be good.

So I would say to calm, chill the "f" down, wait for the results and then we can say if Intel is "done" or not. For now as it is, Intel is still king on many tasks you do on your PC, specially high refresh gaming. Will it change? I have no idea, I can only have my opinion/guess and that´s a big no, because 9700k reaches 5ghz-5,2ghz easily and it is a beast in every game.

Wait and see folks, stop fanboying. For now there isn´t clear evidence or sign of AMD beating Intel in games-

Don't give them logic, they don't like logic. If they did, they wouldn't be defending Intel, the king of overpricing and security problems. It's funny how these kids entire life revolves around games. They NEVER grew up. I realize this is a gaming site, but there is more to computing than only games. Embarrassing really... If they have a powerful computer, and the only thing they do is play games, then they are too immature to understand all of the benefits to this announcement anyway. I love that AMD is putting their foot in Intel's a$$! And from the looks of it, they will continue to do so for many years to come. They will NOT repeat the same mistake they made back in the late 1990's and early 2000's. Finally, as was already said, allllllll of these huge manufacturers would NOT be making all of these mobo's and drives unless they've seen evidence that these chips are head and shoulders better. They ONLY spend huge money and develop for the best products. I hope to see these same Intel guys on here at the end of the year...

This whole website runs around gaming. I can´t get your point honestly, what do you want CPUs for? Rendering? Video editing? Do you make a living from it? Cool story bro, get yourself a HEDT platform, be it blue or red, and make all those saved seconds count because you make a living from them, and stop bothering with mainstream platforms. Even AMD calls their new CPU lineup "Gaming CPUs" right? Look at the sliders.

Where are the videos of intel showing gaming benchmarks for their CPUs?

 

[Danny101]

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

That's why I never pay attention to leaks. It's the reviews, where the rubber meets the road, that gets my attention. Since I have a 370 chipset motherboard, it's the support for the 3000 series, I'm concerned about. There's really no excuse for non-support if the only reason is BIOS memory size. Losing support for lower tiered chips in the process of a BIOS update is something I'm certain most people can live with.

 

[LogiGaming]

Correct, that is another way of saying that Intel and AMD's IPC is about the same.

If you watched the whole keynote, people would not have to keep explaining things to you. And the questions you keep asking, were answered, so it just that you are feigning ignorance, or just outright calling Dr Su a liar.


Also, (again) because we know by now that you didn't bother to watch the keynote, that AMD didn't show gaming results, because they were not showing Navi results right now... but they did give a live comparison. (That you can watch & see.)

AMD did show their product competing against their rival and clearly showing an equal, or even slightly smoother experience. Just because they didn't release exact values and you are disgruntled doesn't mean you can go on blathering like an dolt.

Go watch the video of intel getting destroyed by a chip that cost half as much and uses 65w.

I watched the whole thing. You are being ignorant right now. Let me put this easier for you. These are the graphs on productivity tasks/cinebench etc:

These are the graphs on Gaming tasks:

As you can see AMD used Intel comparasions where they know their new CPUs shine, specially Cinebench wich always shows great results for AMD (it doesn´t suffer from latencies between cache, doesn´t suffer from CCX latencies, doesn´t suffer from specific programming/coding like games and other apps)

BUT, on the gaming sliders they compared their CPU to their old one, 2700x. THIS IS what I meant. You can dodge how you want. If AMD knew their CPU was beating Intel on those games they mentioned, they would have uses 9700k or 9900k on the charts and not the 2700x. ALSO, If you compare GTA V and Overwatch performance between 2700x and 9700k, the Intel chip wins by almost 40%, while 3800x won by 21% and 11% respectively. THIS fact alone shows us that Zen 2 isn´t still as fast as Intel in gaming, or at least in some games.

Now you can keep repeating yourself how much you want, I am not saying Zen 2 is bad or something like that, I simply said WAIT and see, because no sign of it beating Intel in games, is the other way around in fact. Let´s wait for 7 July and let´s hope I am wrong, because I do like competition, unlike you that prefer to fanboy. I look at facts. These are the facts we have for now.

Where are the videos of intel showing gaming benchmarks for their CPUs?

Intel doesn´t usually show comparasions against AMD on their presentations, not in that way. You can see this example on 9900k announcement/presentation:

 

[darkzelda]

Interesting, I'll have to change my Core i7 4790K for one of this beauties.

 

[amstech]

There seems to be no chance that a Ryzen rated to 4.5GHz one core turbo will reach 5.0 GHz on all cores.

I should have clarified that, while I was comparing the viewpoint that both chips are 8/16's, the 9900KS running at 5.0 with all 8 cores simultaneously is pretty impressive, it wasn't until I read the article on here that I realized the difference.

 

[Knot Schure]

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.

I assume the new drive to which you refer is backward compatible with PCIe 3.0?

I see no reason why you couldn't push 5GB/s through 16x lanes of 3.0, and thus nothing to get excited about. If you wanted that drive, you could have it today in your existing system, I expect...