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

[texasrattler]

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

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

LOL Intel didn't even break sweat.
Everyone has known even Intel that AMD processor were better for Productivity, well that didn't change other than AMD beating their own products.
Intel is still KING in the minds of most, which we all know matters more than what some people think here. TONS of people will still be buying Intel for awhile. Zen 3 will help AMD and it's users but they haven't changed anything. They are good with productivity and Intel is better for gaming.
Intel will bridge some of that Productivity gap with 10th gen and so the gap will be is smaller.

I am not saying AMDs Zen 3 isn't good, I am saying what most already knew, it isn't any better than Intel in gaming. Sure AMD has great productivity, we've have all known that for years. It is not new and certainly not what ALL of us were caring about, it's the gaming side we all wanted to know.

 

[texasrattler]

Intel is still faster in gaming for 2 reasons:

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

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

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

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

Do you even realize what you just said?
You just said games aren't being optimized or are poorly coded so why would having a Ryzen help if you are doing more tasks? It wouldn't since the same game you are using isn't optimized, performance would get worse not better. You wouldn't be helping yourself in that regard.

Ryzen processors have NOT been great for gaming because they have been known for stutters and SMT aka hyper threading issues for years.

So lets not start making up bs because AMD made better processors for their users but not necessarily for all situations/scenarios. While Zen 3 is good, it's not going to make magic happen when issues are still present in game/apps coding or within it's own architecture.

 

[texasrattler]

I'm a gamer for the most part, and I'll be buying a Ryzen 7 3700X, it's the smartest buy you can do right now if you are upgrading your processor.

Depending on your smarts. In terms of value, yes but in terms of performance in gaming and having less issues, Id say Intel wins that. More so when looking at Ryzens issues with stutters and SMT.
Intel has issues too but I have yet to see any performance issues with my 3700K and now with my 9700K, games play fine while I still here people complaining over Ryzen issues on various forums and in games.

In the end ALL the processors have their pros and cons but you have to get the best for you. Only you can decide that. No article or person can tell you what's best for YOU.

 

[Daniele 00]

A cpu must do "compute". Which is faster, ryzen or Intel?
Ryzen is a way faster cpu than Intel, by a lot. and also cheaper... safer... cooler.

Games will eventually adapt to use multi core, so Ryzen is also more futureprof.

Will "new" gamers understand a computer is not a playstation? this is my guess.

 

[Lew Zealand]

"Intel is better for gaming." This is true but for how many people?

Looking at the Steam survey, how many gamers' GPUs will generate noticeably higher FPS on a 9900K/9700K CPU vs. a 3700X or 3900X?

If we assume you need a 1080Ti or similar/better then all of 2.85% of gamers out there will benefit from Intel's higher FPS. So AMD is equal for 97% of all gamers, and better for all their other workloads.

If we assume you need a 1070Ti or similar/better (at this level the FPS difference may not be greater than noise) then 8.84% of gamers out there will benefit from Intel's higher FPS. So AMD is equal for 91% of all gamers, and better for all their other workloads.

 

[senorroboto]

Hi Steve, thanks for the review. It definitely feels like AMD is closing the gap to Intel. Even though the single core performance crown still goes to Intel it's getting harder to recommend Intel in the <$300 range. And if gaming isn't the primary use AMD wipes the slate.

I have a question about the RAM speed portion of the article. My understanding is that effective RAM speed is the frequency / CAS (And other timings to a lesser degree but CAS is the primary "# of clocks to read a memory register"). So if you test 3200MHz CL 14 vs 3600MHz CL 16, they will perform nearly the same, since 3200/14 = 228.57 Mhz and 3600/16 = 225 MHz. A small 1.6% difference in the favor of the 3200 C14 RAM being faster, not the 3600 C16. Again it's not exact due to the effects of the other timings, but it should be a hard to measure difference.

This agrees with your results, but begs the question: why tests at different clock speeds with identical memory timings were not run? When you revisit the test with the new 3900X, could you possibly retest with the faster 3600MHz RAM downclocked to 3000Mhz or 3200MHz CL 16 (very commonly available RAM)?

 

[texasrattler]

What hypocrisy? You seem to have missed my points, so you should reread my post. Price for performance was one element to consider, but overall gaming performance and productivity were other elements that I mentioned. The Ryzen 3000s approaches the Intel 9900k and 9700k cpus to within 90-95% in most games and even matches it in a few games. Since Ryzen 3000 just came out, maybe better drivers will slightly increase gaming performance in the future too.

The Ryzen 2000 still wins based on price for performance and dollar per frame alone, but in terms of closing the gap of having almost negligible gaming fps difference, better single core perf and productivity, AND having a better price for performance relative to the top competitor offerings, then Ryzen 3000 is a good option.

You seem to forget that AMD has been approaching Intel for years now. Even with Zen 2 or 3 or whatever # they are on now, they even are on 7nm and still can't take over Intel like many thought would happen. Sure you can get close, hell Intel has got closer to Productivity since 8th gen. Prior to that they were being hammered by AMD in productivity. While both companies close gaps in gaming and productivity, Intel hold the crown because AMD still can't beat them overall. Which is what so many thought would happen. It's didn't.
Many Many people will still see AMD as playing catch up but still just can't beat Intel.

Yes AMDs new proc is good but it's no better than Intel. Yes they do some things better as does Intel.
Intel is the KING. AMD has to take that away before AMD or it's users can say much else. That isn't happening this year or likely anytime soon.

 

[Elver galarga]

They really hit it our of the park with zen2. The only thing Intel is good for is high refresh low resolution gamming. The R 3600 almost reaches 9900k fps with SMT off. A 200 dollars a part with a cooler!!

 

[texasrattler]

A cpu must do "compute". Which is faster, ryzen or Intel?
Ryzen is a way faster cpu than Intel, by a lot. and also cheaper... safer... cooler.

Games will eventually adapt to use multi core, so Ryzen is also more futureprof.

Will "new" gamers understand a computer is not a playstation? this is my guess.

LOL
They all do multicore even consoles.

So Ryzen is not special in terms of multicore. My phone does multicore.

Ryzen is faster, no. Safer from what, again no. Cooler, depends on the cooling.

 

[texasrattler]

They really hit it our of the park with zen2. The only thing Intel is good for is high refresh low resolution gamming. The R 3600 almost reaches 9900k fps with SMT off. A 200 dollars a part with a cooler!!

ROFLMAO

 

[LogiGaming]

You still didn´t see the review(s). Can´t do anything else really. Keep talking about your imaginary "5%" differences. Had this same debate some time ago with Zen+, it was "only 5% slower" too. Same old arguments to make up for the lack of performance. Meanwhile AMD is still competing with a 7700k from 2017 in games and you have more people on this same thread that seen the same as me. What can we do more, is all on the graphs, go check 1% lows, average, everything. Then go check benchmarks for online games where ppl use lower graphic settings and GPU isn´t at 100%. Battlefield V is a good example, with 9700k flying at 200fps and Ryzen 3900x at 155fps.

Meh, boring. Maybe on Zen 3 AMD can finally surprass Intel in gaming and then me and other gamers switch to them. Until then, Intel it is. Getting better tho.

1) 90% is a difference of 10%. A cpu that performances at 90-95% sees a difference of 5-10%. This isn't difficult math.

2) It's even more clear now that you didnt actually read this article. The benchmark here at 1080p clearly shows the 9700k got 168 fps not 200 fps in Battlefield V. The 3700X got 155fps at 1080p. At 1440p, the 9700k got 134 fps vs the 3700X which got 129 fps. Nowhere does it show any Intel cpu "flying at 200fps" so don't make up fictional numbers dude

I will do the math for you here: 168 vs 155 is a difference of 8%. 134 vs 129 is a difference of 4%. So again, this supports what I said.

3) Also, I've actually see reviews from multiple sites and they all show the Ryzen 3000 performing pretty close to the Intel 9000 in games. For example: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-9-3900x/15.html

And these are real benchmarks, not just fictional numbers you made up.

I said, ONLINE. Not singlep layer campaign. Plus, I´m not the only one saying this. Take a look at conclusions on TpU about the 3900x, listed as cons.

See? I´m not the only one disapointed and no matter how many "5%" BS you guys throw at it, it won´t change the fact these CPUs in gaming compete with 7700k from 2017.

 

[LogiGaming]

LOL Intel didn't even break sweat.
Everyone has known even Intel that AMD processor were better for Productivity, well that didn't change other than AMD beating their own products.
Intel is still KING in the minds of most, which we all know matters more than what some people think here. TONS of people will still be buying Intel for awhile. Zen 3 will help AMD and it's users but they haven't changed anything. They are good with productivity and Intel is better for gaming.
Intel will bridge some of that Productivity gap with 10th gen and so the gap will be is smaller.

I am not saying AMDs Zen 3 isn't good, I am saying what most already knew, it isn't any better than Intel in gaming. Sure AMD has great productivity, we've have all known that for years. It is not new and certainly not what ALL of us were caring about, it's the gaming side we all wanted to know.

No you are wrong. Suddenly everyone needs to do Blender renders 24/7, Video encoding, everyone is a top rated streamer that uploads videos for twitch and youtube while playing games all the time, and unzipping 4000 terabyte files on the background at the same time. Gaming performance is irrelevant, what´s important is if your CPU can make you coffee while you surf the web on 120 chrome tabs. /s

 

[dirtyferret]

So Intel CPUs are for boys and AMD CPUs are for men.@ Steve: great job. Please retest some benchmarks if you get your hands on a PCIe v4 SSD.

....that leaves you without a CPU

 

[texasrattler]

So Intel CPUs are for boys and AMD CPUs are for men.@ Steve: great job. Please retest some benchmarks if you get your hands on a PCIe v4 SSD.

All men are boys and boys are men when needed to be.

 

[torchyear]

Thank you @Steve for the comprehensive benchmark. Power efficiency is impressive. I'm looking forward to your B450 benchmark comparison. It would be great if you can do a 1st gen (B350) and DDR2400-2666 benchmark as well. Cheers!

 

[Trikkiedikkie]

I simply do not understand why so much attention goes to gaming. By far most computers are not used for that.

 

[Lew Zealand]

No you are wrong. Suddenly everyone needs to do Blender renders 24/7, Video encoding, everyone is a top rated streamer that uploads videos for twitch and youtube while playing games all the time, and unzipping 4000 terabyte files on the background at the same time. Gaming performance is irrelevant, what´s important is if your CPU can make you coffee while you surf the web on 120 chrome tabs. /s

Good point. And along the same lines, only the tiny %age of gamers rocking a 1080Ti or so can take advantage of Intel's higher gaming FPS while the vast majority of gamers using lesser GPUs can save some money and get the same framerates with a Ryzen 3xxx CPU.

 

[Trikkiedikkie]

"Intel is still KING in the minds of most,"

And that is for a large part because of the illegal trade practices Intel has used. Intel should have been blocked from trading for 2 years, and the whole management should have been thrown in jail together with the management of Dell, HP and others.

 

[Lew Zealand]

I simply do not understand why so much attention goes to gaming. By far most computers are not used for that.

Let's be honest though. The vast majority of people rarely if ever use their CPU to it's fullest extent, even a Sandy Bridge quad core. I commonly surf the net on a Sandy Bridge i5 ultrabook with 4GB RAM and it is sufficient for that.

Gaming and rendering/encoding are the most common jobs that really tax a CPU so that's the point of this testing. I built my desktop PC specifically based on those 2 factors.

 

[brucek]

I simply do not understand why so much attention goes to gaming. By far most computers are not used for that.

Sure. Probably the largest market segment are people that do not game and also are not hardware enthusiasts. The thing is, they also aren't reading this or similar sites, so the articles aren't written for them.

Then you get to the kind of people who see themselves as enthusiasts, will buy their own CPU and build a rig with it, and read this type of site. When they run into a bottleneck on their computer and wish it was more powerful, what is it they are often doing? That's where the answer is gaming. Even if they spend more time on the web, on their office software, watching videos, etc., that's not typically what causes you to want to buy better gear.

 

[Boshum]

Dude, gaming is all we do, but don't take it to heart, both companies are gouging us

Don't get me wrong. The vast majority of gamers wouldn't even notice the Ryzen 2000's performing worse in a blind test. I just wanted to shut the fanboys up.

 

[144hzGamer]

I still dont get some people here. So Intel is only superior in gaming? (That'sa obvious win there btw and I do care more about 0,1% lows than anything, still big differences).

I see people ignore the fact even 9700k is superior to 3700x and 3900x (!) on Photoshop,Premiere, fzd fotograph, etc

So saying Intel is only for gaming is wrong.

 

[Boshum]

I mean, but wasn´t it like that for 2 years now? The advantage Intel had over AMD since Ryzen 1xxx launched was Gaming, not anything else. AMD even had 6c 12t and 8c 16t on mainstream way before Intel, so they were king on productivity tasks already. Nothing changed. It doesn´t matter if Intel is better at games or AMD better at blender. It matters what each user wants to do with his PC. I´m a gamer, I care about framerates, I buy Intel. You work with blendeR? NIce, go AMD.

I'm a gamer and I care about framerates, and for me the the framerate advantage the Intel has is not worth the lower multi-threaded performance, higher price, and more limited upgrade options.....not even over the 2000 series. Multi-threading is not only useful for professionals. I could potentially recommend Intel to a certain niche of gamer if they are dedicated shooty shooter gamers with the requisite graphics card. If you are a more typical gamer go AMD. If you are that special kind of gamer that primarily single tasks lots of fast twitch shooty shooters at low res on a high refresh monitor, then go Intel.

 

[Kodi86]

Well that's a disappointment. It looks like for gaming you're still better off with the 9700k. Not only is the out of the box performance better but the over clocking headroom is there.

 

[144hzGamer]

I mean, but wasn´t it like that for 2 years now? The advantage Intel had over AMD since Ryzen 1xxx launched was Gaming, not anything else. AMD even had 6c 12t and 8c 16t on mainstream way before Intel, so they were king on productivity tasks already. Nothing changed. It doesn´t matter if Intel is better at games or AMD better at blender. It matters what each user wants to do with his PC. I´m a gamer, I care about framerates, I buy Intel. You work with blendeR? NIce, go AMD.

I'm a gamer and I care about framerates, and for me the the framerate advantage the Intel has is not worth the lower multi-threaded performance, higher price, and more limited upgrade options.....not even over the 2000 series. Multi-threading is not only useful for professionals. I could potentially recommend Intel to a certain niche of gamer if they are dedicated shooty shooter gamers with the requisite graphics card. If you are a more typical gamer go AMD. If you are that special kind of gamer that primarily single tasks lots of fast twitch shooty shooters at low res on a high refresh monitor, then go Intel.

Best buy is R5 2600 120€ in my opinion. 15% slower than Ryzen 3000, way cheaper.

And dont forget Intel is faster on premiere amd photoshop.