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

[Bullwinkle M]

Incredible as it may seem, I am VERY happy to be WRONG about AMD!

I Rag on crappy product all day long, and if I say NOTHING bad about your product, you are obviously doing it right

This time I will say it.....

If the reviews turn out as good as the preview, I will find the budget to get my 1st AMD processor

I have been waiting to "double" every single performance metric of my current PC and until today, have not seen anything that could accomplish this

Double or quadruple the # of cores
Double the # of PCIe lanes
Double the PCIe speed
Double the USB speed
Double the power efficency of each core
Double the memory speed
Double or quadruple the amount of RAM

AND.......cut the price in half (per core) at the bare minimum

Since (at the moment) I am currently running a 35 Watt dualcore Sandy Bridge, I can get more than double the performance at every metric imaginable and jump from SATA-2 speed (250MB/sec) to around 6GB/sec when the SSD wars ramp up on PCIe 4.0

I am NOT going to wait any longer for Intel to reach 7nm

I can haz it NOW!

Yes, you heard it right....
It appears I was WRONG!

and I am happy to admit it

I'm Switching Teams

It may have taken nearly 10 years to at least double every single performance metric, but the time has finally arrived!

Goodbye Intel

 

[Puiu]

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...

there is no m.2 that supports 16 lanes. currently the max you can theoretically get with PCIe 3 is around 3.94 GB/s with 4 lanes. you would have to increase the pins or use full PCIe addon drive cards.

 

[Knot Schure]

there is no m.2 that supports 16 lanes. currently the max you can theoretically get with PCIe 3 is around 3.94 GB/s with 4 lanes. you would have to increase the pins or use full PCIe addon drive cards.

Ahh, my bad. I didn't realize we were talking about an M.2 drive. Rather I thought it was a regular PCIe full sized affair.

 

[Puiu]

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

They showed esports titles in their comparison to the 2700x. CS:GO will get around 34% boost in FPS compared to previous gen Ryzen.

Seriously now. You don't need absolute numbers, you can make simple educated guesses. In cs:go what will put it at above 700FPS (~720 if what they say is true) with the 9900k at 5GHz getting 733FPS (according the review done by techspot).

Is your fake 700Hz monitor able to handle it?

 

[m3tavision]

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:

You have massive bias issues.

[LEFT]You actually think YOUR OWN bias is getting in the way and your narrative is the way things are..?

You do realize that Cinebench doesn't favor anybody and simply shows how said CPU crunches. That said, it doesn't matter your opinion, one can always take, or extrapolate the scores for comparison sake. All of which you dismiss... because you believe you get to do so.

Secondly, your point of AMD showing the slide of the uptick from 2700 to the 3700...
You are a farce if you don't understand that. You don't understand that in just buying a chip and taking out your 1700x, or 2700x and getting a 3700x... yields (on average) 25% or greater uplift in your games..?

What don't you understand about that slide..?

This is a keynote speech, it is not a product reveal you genius. And you are all mad/upset/bent over/crying/screaming/yammering/etc about why AMD didn't show the same slide with those games against the 9700k, or 9900k.

Because people with AM4 motherboards are not going out to buy them, but people will get an idea of the performance the Zen2 brings to the table, specially when you see a graph telling you that it is 22% faster than last years chip.

Honestly... did intel release a chip that was 22% faster than the one you bought last year.... and it fits on the exact same mobo you have..? Oh... I wonder why?


Lastly, not even sure what you are arguing.... do you understand the term "relative".
Because if Zen2 matches the IPC of Intel, then how do you think games will do..? Specially when those games have more cache and more threads.

So you make all these naysaying doomsday claims, then claim you don't hate on AMD, & are on a "wait & see" policy before having an opinion..?

Then why even bother with your whole tirade..? Growing pains..?[/LEFT]

 

[OptimumSlinky]

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.

Even if that is true...

1. The Ryzen chip will be half the price for 80+% of the performance, and will force Intel's prices down.
2. The performance will be close enough that Intel will have to keep reinvesting in R&D and we won't be able to get away with resting on its laurels.

Seriously, AMD throwing down this with Ryzen hard is a WIN FOR EVERYONE.

 

[Puiu]

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.

I don't think Zen2 will be able to OC beyond the boost clocks on all cores.
But from what we've seen it seems OEM's are building some rather interesting mobos when it comes to improvements/features related to RAM OCing. We'll know if what they are saying is true or not soon and if it works as they say.

 

[Morphine Child]

All this discussions about top models of both companies... and here I am being happy about R5 3600... gimme that juicy $200 CPU and I will be more than happy. It should be quite a bit faster than my R5 1600

 

[144hzGamer]

You have massive bias issues.

[LEFT]You actually think YOUR OWN bias is getting in the way and your narrative is the way things are..?

You do realize that Cinebench doesn't favor anybody and simply shows how said CPU crunches. That said, it doesn't matter your opinion, one can always take, or extrapolate the scores for comparison sake. All of which you dismiss... because you believe you get to do so.

Secondly, your point of AMD showing the slide of the uptick from 2700 to the 3700...
You are a farce if you don't understand that. You don't understand that in just buying a chip and taking out your 1700x, or 2700x and getting a 3700x... yields (on average) 25% or greater uplift in your games..?

What don't you understand about that slide..?

This is a keynote speech, it is not a product reveal you genius. And you are all mad/upset/bent over/crying/screaming/yammering/etc about why AMD didn't show the same slide with those games against the 9700k, or 9900k.

Because people with AM4 motherboards are not going out to buy them, but people will get an idea of the performance the Zen2 brings to the table, specially when you see a graph telling you that it is 22% faster than last years chip.

Honestly... did intel release a chip that was 22% faster than the one you bought last year.... and it fits on the exact same mobo you have..? Oh... I wonder why?


Lastly, not even sure what you are arguing.... do you understand the term "relative".
Because if Zen2 matches the IPC of Intel, then how do you think games will do..? Specially when those games have more cache and more threads.

So you make all these naysaying doomsday claims, then claim you don't hate on AMD, & are on a "wait & see" policy before having an opinion..?

Then why even bother with your whole tirade..? Growing pains..?[/LEFT]

I have seen you bashing intel and praising Amd everywhere on this website. You are a lost case. You just confirmed what he said, they only compared to 2700x, not intel. Because they most likely dont beat it.

Cinebench is not a perfect benchmark. You know what, I wont even bother to explain, waste of time really.

 

[LogiGaming]

You have massive bias issues.

[LEFT]You actually think YOUR OWN bias is getting in the way and your narrative is the way things are..?

You do realize that Cinebench doesn't favor anybody and simply shows how said CPU crunches. That said, it doesn't matter your opinion, one can always take, or extrapolate the scores for comparison sake. All of which you dismiss... because you believe you get to do so.

Secondly, your point of AMD showing the slide of the uptick from 2700 to the 3700...
You are a farce if you don't understand that. You don't understand that in just buying a chip and taking out your 1700x, or 2700x and getting a 3700x... yields (on average) 25% or greater uplift in your games..?

What don't you understand about that slide..?

This is a keynote speech, it is not a product reveal you genius. And you are all mad/upset/bent over/crying/screaming/yammering/etc about why AMD didn't show the same slide with those games against the 9700k, or 9900k.

Because people with AM4 motherboards are not going out to buy them, but people will get an idea of the performance the Zen2 brings to the table, specially when you see a graph telling you that it is 22% faster than last years chip.

Honestly... did intel release a chip that was 22% faster than the one you bought last year.... and it fits on the exact same mobo you have..? Oh... I wonder why?


Lastly, not even sure what you are arguing.... do you understand the term "relative".
Because if Zen2 matches the IPC of Intel, then how do you think games will do..? Specially when those games have more cache and more threads.

So you make all these naysaying doomsday claims, then claim you don't hate on AMD, & are on a "wait & see" policy before having an opinion..?

Then why even bother with your whole tirade..? Growing pains..?[/LEFT]

Cinebench does favor chips that have the Ryzen design with chiplets and CCX. Because Cinebench results are not affected by any latencies on that design, while games do. This coupled with the fact ZEn 2 won´t be able to overclock much more than their turbo clocks on all cores, will prolly make them still slower than Intel on gaming, and this is why AMD didn´t show gaming benchmarks against Intel. You can dodge how you want, call me biased etc, but is you that I see everywhere bashing Intel 24/7 on this website. That tells me something.

 

[Bluescreendeath]

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.

No, the 3700X is not the same as a 9700K because the former has double the threads. The 3700X tied in single threading but performed 30% better in multithreading if you read the article. That makes the 3700X closer to the i9-9900k.

The 3800x costs $400 and performs equal to the i9-9900k. The i9-9900k costs almost $1000. You're getting the same performance of an i9-9900k for less than half the price. That isn't something to get excited about?

Yes, you have still have fanboy fools who are loyal to a particular brand. Most people who don't know much about computers wouldn't have a particular loyalty either way, and people who know more about computers would eventually wise up to not have brand loyalty. The fools who pick brand loyalty over performance and value are probably a small percent of the consumer base.

 

[m3tavision]

Cinebench does favor chips that have the Ryzen design with chiplets and CCX. Because Cinebench results are not affected by any latencies on that design, while games do. This coupled with the fact ZEn 2 won´t be able to overclock much more than their turbo clocks on all cores, will prolly make them still slower than Intel on gaming, and this is why AMD didn´t show gaming benchmarks against Intel. You can dodge how you want, call me biased etc, but is you that I see everywhere bashing Intel 24/7 on this website. That tells me something.

You are wrong.

Cinebench doesn't test memory, latency or every aspect of a chip. That does not mean cinebench is flawed or favors any one chip, or design..... cinebench tells us about the chips crunchability.

There are databased full of cinebench scores that can be used as reference to any chips relative performance. Ironically, One can compare Intel chips against each other, using cinebench too. To see the relative performance between said chips.

Nobody uses cinebench to compare memory bus structures... like you are suggesting.




Please tell us again how you know what Zen2 will clock to... ?

And once again, this was not a product release of a CPU (in which they would be showing you benchmarks), but only a portion of a keynote speech. The mere fact you are claiming some type of subterfuge, or that AMD is hiding something because they didn't benchmark what you wanted, is utterly laughable.

People are bashing Intel, because they been real slow with progress and forcing people to constantly buy new motherboards to upgrade their CPUs. After so many years, Intel wears on people by expecting them to funnel more money at them. (Fake sockets & motherboards anyone?)

Now we have reasonably priced 12 core for home users and Intel is still trying to offload 4cores on the mainstream.

Mainstream is where all this counts. What does intel offer you at $199, or $299...?

 

[LogiGaming]

You are wrong.

Cinebench doesn't test memory, latency or every aspect of a chip. That does not mean cinebench is flawed or favors any one chip, or design..... cinebench tells us about the chips crunchability.

There are databased full of cinebench scores that can be used as reference to any chips relative performance. Ironically, One can compare Intel chips against each other, using cinebench too. To see the relative performance between said chips.

Nobody uses cinebench to compare memory bus structures... like you are suggesting.




Please tell us again how you know what Zen2 will clock to... ?

And once again, this was not a product release of a CPU (in which they would be showing you benchmarks), but only a portion of a keynote speech. The mere fact you are claiming some type of subterfuge, or that AMD is hiding something because they didn't benchmark what you wanted, is utterly laughable.

People are bashing Intel, because they been real slow with progress and forcing people to constantly buy new motherboards to upgrade their CPUs. After so many years, Intel wears on people by expecting them to funnel more money at them. (Fake sockets & motherboards anyone?)

Now we have reasonably priced 12 core for home users and Intel is still trying to offload 4cores on the mainstream.

Mainstream is where all this counts. What does intel offer you at $199, or $299...?

Cinebench is not a REAL world scenario to test a CPU. Many times a certain chip had the best cinebench scores and then it is inferior in other taks like encoding or gaming, for example. This happens a lot of times. Your problem is that you have a tunneled vision, nothing to do. Realized that after reading your posts on other articles, so I won´t bother wasting my time with you anymore.

 

[mbrowne5061]

None of you even watched the keynote, so I won't ruin your reality bubble party.... but the icebreaking is that Ryzen Zen2 has better IPC than Intel now. And more power efficiency too.

Now scramble to the interwebs to find out of I am wrong.


I'll start you out on Linus's Key Note take, on it:

I bought AMD stock back when it was around $2-3. I'm riding pretty happy right now.

 

[144hzGamer]

You are wrong.

Cinebench doesn't test memory, latency or every aspect of a chip. That does not mean cinebench is flawed or favors any one chip, or design..... cinebench tells us about the chips crunchability.

There are databased full of cinebench scores that can be used as reference to any chips relative performance. Ironically, One can compare Intel chips against each other, using cinebench too. To see the relative performance between said chips.

Nobody uses cinebench to compare memory bus structures... like you are suggesting.




Please tell us again how you know what Zen2 will clock to... ?

And once again, this was not a product release of a CPU (in which they would be showing you benchmarks), but only a portion of a keynote speech. The mere fact you are claiming some type of subterfuge, or that AMD is hiding something because they didn't benchmark what you wanted, is utterly laughable.

People are bashing Intel, because they been real slow with progress and forcing people to constantly buy new motherboards to upgrade their CPUs. After so many years, Intel wears on people by expecting them to funnel more money at them. (Fake sockets & motherboards anyone?)

Now we have reasonably priced 12 core for home users and Intel is still trying to offload 4cores on the mainstream.

Mainstream is where all this counts. What does intel offer you at $199, or $299...?

i5 9400f is 150€ here
i7 8700 non K 270€
I5 8600k 230€
i5 9600k 240€

These are mainstream CPUs and they are faster on many tasks, specially gaming, opposed to the similiary priced competitors.

Anyway you baiting everywhere, even on laptop topics.

 

[Markoni35]

AMD should play on the card of security. Every piece of electronics can have security problems, but Intel is really like Swiss cheese. Can't believe their crap has so many flaws. They keep releasing generation after generation, without closing a single security hole. Don't anyone in Intel care about their customer security? And those aren't security holes... they are more like caves... you could park an aircraft carrier inside each of them.

 

[144hzGamer]

AMD should play on the card of security. Every piece of electronics can have security problems, but Intel is really like Swiss cheese. Can't believe their crap has so many flaws. They keep releasing generation after generation, without closing a single security hole. Don't anyone in Intel care about their customer security? And those aren't security holes... they are more like caves... you could park an aircraft carrier inside each of them.

9th gen CPUs are not affected by security flaws, they have hardware mitigations.

 

[OptimumSlinky]

Shintels gonna shill.

 

[Nocturne]

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.

2 years from now? By then AMD will already be at 5nm.

 

[Nocturne]

AMD should play on the card of security. Every piece of electronics can have security problems, but Intel is really like Swiss cheese. Can't believe their crap has so many flaws. They keep releasing generation after generation, without closing a single security hole. Don't anyone in Intel care about their customer security? And those aren't security holes... they are more like caves... you could park an aircraft carrier inside each of them.

9th gen CPUs are not affected by security flaws, they have hardware mitigations.

Nope those were already cracked as well in the newest Spector variant.

 

[144hzGamer]

Nope those were already cracked as well in the newest Spector variant.

Nope they werent, ZL does not affect 9th gen CPUs. And Spectre also affected Ryzen CPUs and ARM.

 

[jpuroila]

Nope they werent, ZL does not affect 9th gen CPUs.

The researchers who discovered it say otherwise.

 

[m3tavision]

Cinebench is not a REAL world scenario to test a CPU. Many times a certain chip had the best cinebench scores and then it is inferior in other taks like encoding or gaming, for example. This happens a lot of times. Your problem is that you have a tunneled vision, nothing to do. Realized that after reading your posts on other articles, so I won´t bother wasting my time with you anymore.

You are just yammering now, because I already stated such (in the post you just quoted).

What single benchmark tells us real world performance..? The answer is none, & that is why you use several different benchmarks to test all aspects of a chip. No single bench is invalid, because it doesn't test all aspects of a chip... like you are trying to claim.

The problem here is... that you are bias and angry... and unable to accept the facts, because you are emotional.

 

[LogiGaming]

You are just yammering now, because I already stated such (in the post you just quoted).

What single benchmark tells us real world performance..? The answer is none, & that is why you use several different benchmarks to test all aspects of a chip. No single bench is invalid, because it doesn't test all aspects of a chip... like you are trying to claim.

The problem here is... that you are bias and angry... and unable to accept the facts, because you are emotional.

You the only one angry here spamming hate on every Intel related article and not accepting the fact amd only compared their gaming performance with their own chips

 

[m3tavision]

Look in the mirror. I am using facts and charts. You are unable to accept those facts, nor take AMD's charts at face value.

You are the only person here, who doesn't understand why AMD is showing off the performance of the new chip, verse their old.

It is as if... you do not understand percentages.



(also: This is not an Intel related article, you are the one spamming AMD doom & gloom.)