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

[Studio Ghibli]

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.

I'm new to the PC scene ,but in your opinion which would be better for me I usually have many tabs going for browsing,research , various things etc etc ,which would be better for me if I am gaming and also have multiple tabs open as well? the Intel 9900k or the Amd 3900x Or is that more of a RAM thing ? Or do I need both.

 

[Boshum]

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.

What gamer? For GTX 1060 users playing Skyrim? For gamers who just want to enjoy a wide variety of games without spending $400 on a graphics card? Nah...it's a huge waste of money for most gamers.

 

[Boshum]

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.

Now I can agree to that. Just as wrong as it is to say Ryzen is not for gaming, or Ryzen is only for productivity.

 

[Boshum]

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.

Scratch that..the 1600 deal is gone. Yeah those 2600's look nice.

 

[texasrattler]

I think some in here arent reading things correctly or adding bs to the thread.
Intel is better for gaming is what most have said. I didnt see anyone say Intel is only for gaming and AMD is only for productivity. People need to seriously stop making s*** up.

In the end its up to the user what best for them. For some its price, others gaming and productivity/multi tasking is what suits them. There is and has never been a perfect solution or one best option, whatever works for you is the best option. No site, article or person has all the answers.

Also gaming is just the term used for high end computer use but those who do engineering, auto cad, almost any design work/3d rendering, will also be using a gaming computer. So there are a lot of fields that use a gaming computer not just gamers.

 

[Jo3yization]

The only thing this article was really lacking was some *lower than ultra/highest* gaming benchmarks, where the FPS goes a fair bit higher & CPU bound really comes into play. I'd be curious on that for the CPU intensive titles like BF1 to see if it can hit the 144fps+ minimums.

CSGO, DOTA 2 & PUBG are also CPU intensive & POPULAR titles to use for a CPU review//gaming section, rather than just AAA/recent titles.

I'll wait for the 'competitive gaming CPU benchmark article' Hopefully one day Techspot xD

 

[Studio Ghibli]

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.

Keyword eventually,which by that time Intel will have most likely bridged another gap with multi performance.

 

[Studio Ghibli]

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

If I wanted to play games while also surfing the web on 120 chrome tab which cpu would be better 9900k or 3900x?

 

[Boshum]

I think some in here arent reading things correctly or adding bs to the thread.
Intel is better for gaming is what most have said. I didnt see anyone say Intel is only for gaming and AMD is only for productivity. People need to seriously stop making s*** up.

In the end its up to the user what best for them. For some its price, others gaming and productivity/multi tasking is what suits them. There is and has never been a perfect solution or one best option, whatever works for you is the best option. No site, article or person has all the answers.

Also gaming is just the term used for high end computer use but those who do engineering, auto cad, almost any design work/3d rendering, will also be using a gaming computer. So there are a lot of fields that use a gaming computer not just gamers.

It's good for people to talk about this stuff because when someone says 'Intel is better for gaming' it's a very generic and unqualified term. Someone learning about this stuff might wrongly assume it means that it's a better choice for all gamers, and that they should get Intel if they game, or that their gaming experience will be better with Intel. Of course we know that's not necessarily true, as it depends on a number of factors like budget, graphics card, games played, etc.

 

[Boshum]

If I wanted to play games while also surfing the web on 120 chrome tab which cpu would be better 9900k or 3900x?

Have you ever had 120 chrome tabs up before? What did it do to your cpu useage or your ram useage? With 12 Chrome tabs open on my i5-2400 Chrome is using 34% cpu and 1.5GB ram. The 3900X has more cpu resources, but if you run out of ram first it might not matter. A speculative guess is that if you have plenty of ram left and the 9900K is down to 50% cpu before you start a game (perhaps equivalent to a 4c/8t leftover) and the 3900X is down to 66% left before you start the game(perhaps like an 8c/16t leftover)...that the 3900X will start to pull ahead in a game over the 9900K. This is all purely conjecture though, so take with a grain of salt. I am sure that someone will probably roast me over this speculation.

 

[texasrattler]

It's good for people to talk about this stuff because when someone says 'Intel is better for gaming' it's a very generic and unqualified term. Someone learning about this stuff might wrongly assume it means that it's a better choice for all gamers, and that they should get Intel if they game, or that their gaming experience will be better with Intel. Of course we know that's not necessarily true, as it depends on a number of factors like budget, graphics card, games played, etc.

You missed the whole point. It wasn't about if its actually better but about people adding things that people either aren't saying or simply adding bs.

 

[Bluescreendeath]

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.

I didn't forget. AMD playing catchup is not relevant to my point. I'm comparing Ryzen 3000 with Intel 9000, not AMD in the past or Intel in the future. Also, take a look at some productivity benchmarks for the 3700X and 3900X. The 8C/16T $330 3700X manages to trade blows with and even manages to beat the 8C/16T $500 9900k in some benchmarks. So actually, 8C/16T AMD cpus are actually beating 8C/16T Intel cpus in some productivity applications, despite the lower clock speed. Intel is not the universal productivity winner anymore even when comparing CPUs with the same number of cores and threads.

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-9-3900x/6.html

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.

It depends on what is being used. AMD is beating Intel in some aspects here. Intel CPUs have a small advantage in gaming, while AMD's cpus have a small advantage in multitasking and productivity at the same core and price level. AMD has the better price for performance overall. If you look at some non-gaming applications benchmarks, the 8C/16T 3700X even beats the 8C/16T 9900K in some benchmarks.

So in terms of IPC, Ryzen 3000 might actually beat the Intel 9000 series and the main wall to overcome is the limited clock speeds.

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-9-3900x/7.html

 

[Boshum]

You missed the whole point. It wasn't about if its actually better but about people adding things that people either aren't saying or simply adding bs.

Well it's a conversation. New points get brought up. If you think someone (myself maybe) brought something up that is completely unrelated and the conversation has been thrown off-track completely then be more specific.

 

[Bluescreendeath]

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.

1) You misleadingly left out TPU's actual text and benchmarks in order to distort their conclusion. This is what TPU's conclusion said: "When looking at gaming, our results confirm that AMD has caught up big time here, too, and the performance differences are much smaller. At higher resolutions like 1440p and 4K, the gap is pretty much non-existent, and parity with Intel has been reached."

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-9-3900x/23.html

Their actual benchmarks show the Ryzen 3700X performing within 6% of the i9 9900K at 1080p and within 2% of the 9900k at 1440p. TPU is clearly saying Intel is faster overall, but they are negligibly faster.

2) Let's see what Techspot has to say: "The 3900X was 8% slower than the 9900K on average at 1080p, so AMD’s halved the deficit to Intel in gaming. Then as we’ve found before with Ryzen, for almost anything else the 3900X buries the 9900K, while the 3700X delivers comparable performance."

3) Not sure how many times I have to explain to you that 90% of something is actually a 10% difference, not a 5% difference. Why do you keep making fictional claims like "people are throwing out 5%"? I clearly said multiple times that the Ryzen 3000 is "90%-95%" of Intel 9000 in most cases.

4) Intel's 7700K also competes with Intel's own 9000 cpu series in many games. According to your own logic, Intel 9000s aren't very good because the several years old 7700k performs almost as good in these games?

5) Speaking of fictional claims, the only BS here is the fictional numbers you're throwing around like claiming Intel got 200 fps in Battlefield V and then cherry picking a single example like World War Z at 1080p. Now you're trying to back track by claiming you were talking about some other benchmark and online play, but you were clearly comparing Techspot's benchmarks when you said this in your earlier post: "Battlefield V is a good example, with 9700k flying at 200fps and Ryzen 3900x at 155fps."
This is like your earlier claim that there were big differences between AMD and Intel in Hitman and Tomb Raider, but the actual Techspot benchmarks showed there was only a 10fps difference between the 3700X and 9700k in Tomb Raider at 1080p and 2-7fps difference 1440p. In Hitman 2, there is an 18 fps difference at 1080p and a 8fps difference at 1440p. You are just straight up making fictional claims and fictional numbers.

6) Techspot's conclusion says the difference between the 3900X and 9900K is around 8%, while Techpowerup benchmarks show the gaming difference between the 3700X and 9900K is 2-6% in gaming at 1440p and 1080p respectively. These are actual benchmarks and conclusions by Techspot and Techpowerup and not fictional numbers you made up.

The recurring theme here is that you're being intentionally misleading by leaving out contextual information to distort conclusions, cherry picking, and even straight up making up fictional claims.

 

[Janno Jacomille]

Wow such a major disapointment! Awful overclockers, can´t even sustain acceptable clocks with acceptable voltages. They run hot and still underperforming in games compared to Intel CPUs at 4,8ghz. Meh, I was expecting AMD to completly obliterate Intel but this is just a major let down!

Then buy the 9900K. Go Ahead. Just don't forget to patch up for Zombieload exploit... And disable Hyper-Threading as well.

 

[texasrattler]

Well it's a conversation. New points get brought up. If you think someone (myself maybe) brought something up that is completely unrelated and the conversation has been thrown off-track completely then be more specific.

Your are still missing the whole entire point. This is NOT about making convo, people have basically lied saying people were saying stuff when it's not true. Adding things when there was nothing.
You seemed to think this was about the procs, it wasn't. It was about people saying things that simply were just made up.

Anyways, people will make crap up no matter what to get attention. Sad times.

 

[texasrattler]

"One of the most divisive PC hardware dramas of recent times has culminated in the official launch of AMD's new Ryzen 3000 series, and the reviews, such as this one, show that AMD has indeed managed to match or beat Intel's top of the range in most areas, except perhaps gaming, at a lower price and greater efficiency. Instead of fanboy arguments, everyone should be supporting this development; it's already resulted in price cuts from Intel and Nvidia, hopefully more will follow. What would I buy if I were in the market right now? Truthfully, I'd still be split over getting a 9700K at the mid-end, or splurging on the 3900X at the high-end for future proofing. Why? I know I sound like a broken record, but HT/SMT is a greater issue than people consider, and not just for Intel as AMD CPUs rise in popularity. AMD noted last year regarding PortSmash for example that "...the issues are related to any processor that uses simultaneous multithreading (SMT), including those from AMD..." Thus I recommend the CPUs with the fastest performance when excluding HT/SMT: I.e., the 9700K for 8 physical core and the 3900X for 12 physical core performance dominance. But that's just my (possibly alarmist) 2c worth, feel free to spend your money as you wish!" - Tweakguides

 

[Steve]

Nope, he made a valid point. Why did you test that game in DX11 when the game is a DX12 ready title? Additionally, you tested Battlefield V with DX11 as well when that game also has DX12 support. Also, you could have chosen more modern titles like Battlefield 1 and Metro Exodus for example..

You are trolling him and in doing so you are completely out of line. What seems clear is that you either didn't do your due diligence, or you deliberately skewed the results. Either way, it calls your entire testing methodology into question, and with your comment completely invalidated the objectivity of your review and have shown good reason to doubt your professionalism.

Poor showing here. Very poor indeed.

DX12 frame time performance in BFV is bad, so we don't use it. Would you like me to add DX12 support to ACO?

 

[Boshum]

Your are still missing the whole entire point. This is NOT about making convo, people have basically lied saying people were saying stuff when it's not true. Adding things when there was nothing.
You seemed to think this was about the procs, it wasn't. It was about people saying things that simply were just made up.

Anyways, people will make crap up no matter what to get attention. Sad times.

Whatever dude. If you can't be specific about what someone made up...who can tell what you are talking about? If you are talking about where I said this:
"Now I can agree to that. Just as wrong as it is to say Ryzen is not for gaming, or Ryzen is only for productivity."
I'm addressing a point someone made that to say Intel is only for gaming is wrong. I'm agreeing and also pointing out a related thing I see that is wrong....whether or not it was mentioned here..it seems to be a common thought.
If your pants are are in knots over my statement "it's likewise wrong to say such and such about Ryzens" as if I am making some diabolical accusation of someone here, I don't know what can be done to help you.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

Kinda disappointing in all honesty. I'm looking at those scores, and comparing them to what my 4.0 GHz ryzen 1700 does, and not seeing much of an improvement.

I know "you cant compare OC to stock" yadda yadda, but given these ryzen 3000 chips cant OC much at all, I figure its a relevant test. The 1800 doesnt keep 4.0 GHz boost for long, if at all, in games, so the manual OC puts my chip slightly higher then the 1800 in the tests above. I just cant see a few FPS being worth $300+ to upgrade.

I was hoping for AMD to deliver on the 5-10% improvement in IPC, combined with higher clocks, to take the crown from intel in gaming. As is, I guess I'll stick with my 1700 for another 3-4 years.

 

[Evernessince]

If you don´t have a 2080ti or do not play at 1080p, then get the 2700 instead because it costs half of the price and will have similar performance.

Not everyone uses their PC's exclusively for gaming. People actually want the additional cores.

And these are the flagships. The cheaper offerings will only perform worse. Good try AMD, but this wasn't the competition I was waiting for. What I wanted was a faster or as fast as Intel in games and acceptable overclocking in a 6 or 8 core package.

The cheaper options have less cores and marginally lower clock speed. Performing within 5% of a 3900X is still much better then Intel's budget offerings.

Those cpus are fraud.

They can't even hit advertised boost clocks, realized it now, they should be banned. They advertise 4.6ghz boost.

This is a motherboard bug that will be fixed shortly. There should be a bump in performance when it is fixed

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.

Depends on the game. Tom's had the 3900X winning in 2 games. Saying nothing's changed is ignoring the fact that the difference in gaming has vastly shrunken. Previously you could argue that with a top end rig the Ryzen CPU might hold you pack. Now? Unless you are a eSports pro, the only visual difference will be in placebo.

That's not entirely correct as the 9700K also has an advantage at 1440p. In a few titles it's noticeable so I don't think it's fair to just ignore it. We also have to remember that high refresh rate monitors are a thing. It's not uncommon for gamers to lower their graphical settings to have their fps hover around their monitors' refresh rate. By doing that they are putting more stress on the CPU making it's performance more important.

Of course how much the above is relevant is going to differ from one person to another. As a all-round performer the Ryzens are clearly the better buy, there's just no denying that. Also as you point out, the added and quite decent cooler (looking at you Intel...) is an added bonus for people on a budget. But if you care about every fps you can have then Intel is still the best option for you.

Margin of error exists as test resolution does not provide perfect accuracy. You cannot declare something an advantage if it lies withing the testing variance.

If you call "almost negligible gaming fps difference" 30fps and 40fps differences, then yeah. We done with this debate. I heard the same about 2700x vs 8700k. In that time ppl also said "only 5% slower". Now finally everyone saying is more lik 30% in some scenarios. Now the new "only 5% slower than Intel" chip is Ryzen 3000. In 1 year when Zen3 is out, ppl will finally admit it was still behind and Zen3 will close the gap even more. Whatever. 5%. Sure.

Aren't you taking a small occurrence and extrapolating it? How many games in this bench had that level of difference? One? Two? Statistically speaking those are outliers, not the norm. TechSpot did a 30-some game roundup of the 2700X vs the 8700K and the 8700K was about 9% ahead. Who would have thought that a smaller sample size could yield different results /s.

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.

Having less issues and stutters isn't a valid strike against AMD, especially not in the last 12 months. Intel has had far more issues with security holes.

Please provide a link to these "stutters and SMT" issues you speak of. From every review of 1000, 2000, and 3000 CPUs the Ryzen CPUs are smooth as butter in games. In addition, SMT is more efficient then hyperthreading. I don't see any evidence that suggests otherwise. On the otherhand, hyperthreading is compromised.

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.

Ironically Intel has had 0% IPC increase since the 7700K so technically you are saying AMD's new CPUs are as good as their current ones. A 7700K with 12 cores? That my friend is a complement.

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.

Um did you not read the review? The 3900X spanks the 9900K in premier. In addition, the 3900X beats it in photoshop as well: https://www.pcworld.com/article/3405567/ryzen-3000-review-amds-12-core-ryzen-9-3900x.html?page=3

It appears to me that the IPC improvements of the Ryzen 3000 series were targeted at productivity as the performance improvements in that category are impressive.

So the conclusion that the 9900K is only for gaming is pretty accurate. The number of apps that Intel wins in outside of gaming grew much slimmer today.

I'm new to the PC scene ,but in your opinion which would be better for me I usually have many tabs going for browsing,research , various things etc etc ,which would be better for me if I am gaming and also have multiple tabs open as well? the Intel 9900k or the Amd 3900x Or is that more of a RAM thing ? Or do I need both.

It's both a RAM thing and a CPU thing. Browser tabs take up RAM and CPU resources (how much depends on what's in each tab and your browser). Firefox will take up about 5% of my 2700X in the background with 3 text only tabs open. For many tabs in the background you are going to want to go 32GB of RAM. I'd recommend the 3900X over the 9900K. The 3900X wins in every category except for gaming and even then you need to be playing at 1080p with a 2080 Ti to even reap the advantage.

The only thing this article was really lacking was some *lower than ultra/highest* gaming benchmarks, where the FPS goes a fair bit higher & CPU bound really comes into play. I'd be curious on that for the CPU intensive titles like BF1 to see if it can hit the 144fps+ minimums.

CSGO, DOTA 2 & PUBG are also CPU intensive & POPULAR titles to use for a CPU review//gaming section, rather than just AAA/recent titles.

I'll wait for the 'competitive gaming CPU benchmark article' Hopefully one day Techspot xD

I would also like to see those games benchmarked, just not at lower resolutions. Pro gamers play at 1080p, anything below that is not a realistic scenario.

If I wanted to play games while also surfing the web on 120 chrome tab which cpu would be better 9900k or 3900x?

Holey smokes that's a lot of tabs. The 3900X is certainly what you want for something like that. That's going to eat a ton of RAM and CPU.

Kinda disappointing in all honesty. I'm looking at those scores, and comparing them to what my 4.0 GHz ryzen 1700 does, and not seeing much of an improvement.

I know "you cant compare OC to stock" yadda yadda, but given these ryzen 3000 chips cant OC much at all, I figure its a relevant test. The 1800 doesnt keep 4.0 GHz boost for long, if at all, in games, so the manual OC puts my chip slightly higher then the 1800 in the tests above. I just cant see a few FPS being worth $300+ to upgrade.

I was hoping for AMD to deliver on the 5-10% improvement in IPC, combined with higher clocks, to take the crown from intel in gaming. As is, I guess I'll stick with my 1700 for another 3-4 years.

Yes, gaming results a bit disappointing. Looks like they put most of the IPC improvements towards productivity.

 

[Arbie]

@Evernessince Your forbearance borders on the saintly.

 

[Angelscry]

Remember the 1st and 2nd Ryzen release key notes? During their presentation they always shows graphs and benchmarks in their favour. But everytime when the item is released, the benchmarks and graphs shows something else.
Remember Radeon VII keynotes AMD showed during their event? Remember how they said and showed it beating and sometimes on par with RTX2080? It was the other way around when the product was finally released.
AMD just shows mostly fake benchmarks and graphs during their press events. This is how I knew that the 3rd Gen Ryzen release would turn out the same way. I own a Ryzen 2700x with GTX1060. I'm definitely not an Intel fan boy and I hate their pricings and lack of upgradability path. But at the same time, I'm really sad about this year's Ryzen release. I hoped it would at least match Intel with gaming as well. But still, I'll upgrade to 3rd Gen once the prices comes down and once I sell my 2700X. Or may be I'll just wait for 2020's Ryzen release.
Really disappointed to hear about the OC failure.
I want to keep supporting AMD because I really appreciate them for being the first company to give us an affordable 8 core chip wherelse Intel kept theirs for higher end enthusiasts all these years. Remember i7 5960X for $1000?
I'll stick with AMD for processor and nVidia for GPU.

 

[Lounds]

I don't think I've seen so many comments on a techspot post before lol. Anyways, still early days of Zen3 I'm sure when there's been a few more optimization patches it'll look a bit different in a few months time. On the gaming side next Gen consoles are going to be 8 cores and possibly 16 threads with SMT, so anyone praising current i5 because they've personally bought one is an *****, give it 2 years you'll of wish you'd of bought an Intel or AMD CPU with 12 or 16 threads.

 

[texasrattler]

@Evernessince Are you serious, go to AMDs own forums. This stuff has been going on for years.
SMT being more efficient, maybe but in terms of gaming, not a chance. Hell, people actually turn the damn thing off most of the time. The same goes for Intels HT. Both get turned off due to issues with performance and/or security issues.

Keep reading through their CPU forums...
The Ryzen platform has been plagued with reported "game stuttering" issues since release.
Please see the AMD forums for more information.

Besides the "Standby memory cleaner"; there is no fix.

There is a reason why many "gamers" are jumping ship....
While Ryzen is a HUGE jump over the FX/FM platform; it was rushed (in order to keep AMD out of bankruptcy).
We're hoping that the 3rd generation corrects this (and other) issue(s).

-This comes by way of a user who posted in the nvidia forums.

 

[retsxel]

DX12 frame time performance in BFV is bad, so we don't use it. Would you like me to add DX12 support to ACO?

Wow, Thank You for proving my point about not doing due diligence. The problems with BFV and DX12 have been solved for a while. Yes, of course you should include it in testing. While I personally don't play ACO, a quick search showed it too has DX12 support as it was originally going to be a DX12 exclusive. But hey, whatever. Do a job well, don't a job well, as long as those click-throughs happen...

 

[hahahanoobs]

Tech Jesus recommends not buying the 3900X for gaming only setups. OUCH!!!
AMD forgot that flagship CPU's are supposed to perform better than the rest of the lineup. It's too bad for AMD that 12 cores is too many cores too soon to be part of the Ryzen lineup. This should have totally been a Threadripper part.

Oh well. There's always Zen 3, because Intel 14nm lives on...

 

[retsxel]

While Ryzen is a HUGE jump over the FX/FM platform; it was rushed (in order to keep AMD out of bankruptcy)

That is complete rubbish. AMD was doing fine before Ryzen as it's mobile and console business was booming. Where do you think they got the money to sink into R&D for Ryzen, Radeon7 and Navi? The sky maybe? Granted, they are doing much better now, but the idea that they were hurting before Ryzen is completely false.

 

[retsxel]

Tech Jesus recommends not buying the 3900X for gaming only setups. OUCH!!!

? Who's "Tech Jesus"?