Review AMD Ryzen 9 3900X and Ryzen 7 3700X Review: Zen 2 and 7nm Unleashed

[SHGSMIDT]

What Thermal Compound application method would you recommend for the Ryzen 9 3900X (Vertical Line, Middle Dot, etc)?

 

[jimmysmitty]

What Thermal Compound application method would you recommend for the Ryzen 9 3900X (Vertical Line, Middle Dot, etc)?

Thats a good question. Since it has basically two (or more) dies inside the CPU itself you would want the best coverageon the entire IHS. Dot might be best or even the X method. However it will also depend on what TIM you are using for it as some spread better than others in certain methods.

 

[paul prochnow]

Since it is easy enough to post here, I knew those seeking a Ryzen 9 3900X would want a report on gaming heat via a CPUZHWMON Screen Shot

Anyway it was 144w.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1154808592224202752

View: https://twitter.com/321php/status/1154808592224202752/photo/1

Just open new tab and 150% it looks clear type.

 

[MasterZoen]

Okay, I know I'm late to the party, but why did you test a high end system with VRMark Orange Room? This is not a true test for a CPU and GPU! It's just to determine if the system is VR Ready!
From VRMark Developer UL_Jarnis over on the Steam Forums:
"Orange Room, quite true, is not a normal benchmark. It is intended only to figure out if you meet the minimum requirement of the HMDs. It gets CPU limited real fast. It is NOT a graphics card performance test. It is not intended to be that. So comparing two PCs to each other with it is not what you should be doing. The documentation does tell you this, but after almost 20 years of 3DMarks, I can see how it is easy to miss this fact.

Blue Room and Cyan Room are just as much "proper benchmarks" as anything, they are purely GPU-limited so will scale well and specifically test performance in rendering VR. This specific thing does mean that they only scale to two GPUs in multi-GPU, but this is the limitation of VR APIs as they do not support 3+ card configs - and in all honesty vendors are phasing out 3+ GPU multi-GPU configurations. 2080 for example can only be set up in 1 or 2 card configuration at all. "

 

[jimmysmitty]

Okay, I know I'm late to the party, but why did you test a high end system with VRMark Orange Room? This is not a true test for a CPU and GPU! It's just to determine if the system is VR Ready!
From VRMark Developer UL_Jarnis over on the Steam Forums:
"Orange Room, quite true, is not a normal benchmark. It is intended only to figure out if you meet the minimum requirement of the HMDs. It gets CPU limited real fast. It is NOT a graphics card performance test. It is not intended to be that. So comparing two PCs to each other with it is not what you should be doing. The documentation does tell you this, but after almost 20 years of 3DMarks, I can see how it is easy to miss this fact.

Blue Room and Cyan Room are just as much "proper benchmarks" as anything, they are purely GPU-limited so will scale well and specifically test performance in rendering VR. This specific thing does mean that they only scale to two GPUs in multi-GPU, but this is the limitation of VR APIs as they do not support 3+ card configs - and in all honesty vendors are phasing out 3+ GPU multi-GPU configurations. 2080 for example can only be set up in 1 or 2 card configuration at all. "

When testing CPUs you want to put the limit on the CPU not the GPU. This was a CPU review.

 

[lxtbell2]

A 12 core CPU will not be any faster than an 8 core for home users. The software used does not scale with that many cores. If it was so easy to make typical software scale with more cores, programmers would have already done it. Most mainstream software is not capable of being highly parallelized like a graphics workload, so this problem isn't going to get fixed without a completely different type of computing platform. Adding more cores doesn't make a PC faster when what you really need is faster cores.

What "home user" software do you find speed lacking and experience can be improved by and only by faster cores?

 

[luis_2931]

You don't have to. Both are single threaded applications with random addons that may support multithreading, so you know Intel is going to win, just like most stuff from Adobe. People like Ncogneto don't seem to grasp how much commonly used software doesn't benefit at all from increased core counts beyond a few.

Hola
kinggremlin;

realizo modelado 3d high y low poly con el software maya 2018 que procesador me recomiendas intel o ryzen?

 

[luis_2931]

[QUOTE = "lxtbell2, publicación: 21223912, miembro: 2568342"]
¿Qué software de "usuario doméstico" encuentra que le falta velocidad y que la experiencia puede mejorarse solo con núcleos más rápidos?
[/CITAR]





Hola
kinggremlin ;

realizo modelado 3d high y low poly con el software maya 2018 que procesador me recomiendas intel o ryzen?

 

[luis_2931]

[QUOTE = "kinggremlin, publicación: 21138645, miembro: 263662"]
Una CPU de 12 núcleos no será más rápida que una de 8 núcleos para usuarios domésticos. El software utilizado no escala con tantos núcleos. Si fuera tan fácil crear una escala de software típica con más núcleos, los programadores ya lo habrían hecho. La mayoría del software convencional no puede ser altamente paralelo como una carga de trabajo de gráficos, por lo que este problema no se solucionará sin un tipo de plataforma informática completamente diferente. Agregar más núcleos no hace que una PC sea más rápida cuando lo que realmente necesita son núcleos más rápidos.
[/CITAR]




Hola
kinggremlin ;

realizo modelado 3d high y low poly con el software maya 2018 que procesador me recomiendas intel o ryzen?

 

[NightHawkRMX]

Yo no hablo mucho espanol.
Tú nessitas hablar ingles con google translate.

 

[ajdavidsome]

According to the review this processor 3900x is not compatible with my msi x370 sli plus motherboard. According to the msi website it is compatible with a firmware upgrade hence why I purchased it. Could you please confirm this. Thanks.

 

[cryoburner]

From a quick search, I don't see anything saying that in the review. The only mention of X370 is on page 2, where they state...

Ryzen 3000-series chips are compatible with most previous-gen motherboards with the AM4 socket, but some updates are left to vendor discretion. As such, you won't be able to drop a new Third-gen Ryzen chip into all X370 and B350 motherboards, and A320's upgrade path is blocked entirely. Due to the uneven application of BIOS updates across the various vendors, and even among different motherboards in the respective product stacks, you'll have to check the CPU support list for your X370 or B350 motherboard to ensure it supports Third-gen Ryzen.

They are simply saying there that not all X370 boards will necessarily have a BIOS update to support the 3rd-gen Ryzen processors, and that you will need to check the manufacturer's website to confirm that a BIOS with support for them is available. From a look at your board's support page, it does look like there is at least a beta BIOS available for these newer CPUs. You would need an already supported CPU to perform the BIOS update with though.

 

[Hellomyself72]

AMD's Ryzen 3000 series promises more performance and value via the benefits of the 7nm process and Zen 2 microarchitecture.

AMD Ryzen 9 3900X and Ryzen 7 3700X Review: Zen 2 and 7nm Unleashed : Read more

It says "Nvidia GeForce RTX 2080 Ti". Is it from ASUS, Gigabyte, MSI, Nvidia, or what company? Is it just a Founders Edition?

 

[King_V]

It says "Nvidia GeForce RTX 2080 Ti". Is it from ASUS, Gigabyte, MSI, Nvidia, or what company? Is it just a Founders Edition?

Why would that matter?

 

[Soaptrail]

Why would that matter?

Isn't Founders Edition a Nvidia.com only card? It matters as different cards have different speeds and cooling ablilities.

 

[King_V]

Isn't Founders Edition a Nvidia.com only card? It matters as different cards have different speeds and cooling ablilities.

Very marginal differences. The 2080 Ti was chosen so that there would be no possibility of the GPU being the limiting factor, thus allowing the CPUs to be adequately tested.

Which specific 2080 Ti isn't going to make a difference in the outcome of the CPU comparison tests.

 

[a_aramini]

I realize that this review is a year old. However, I am currently looking to upgrade my personal home PC, and was doing HW research. My current system, an Intel Core 2 Quad Q8400/Asus P5C-Q/8GB PC3-10600 1333MHz/Geforce GT 710 system, has served me well but just isn't cutting it anymore.

I have used both AMD and Intel in the past (used to have an IT repair consulting business, have been in IT for over 20yrs, and have done many builds for others) and am not necessarily a fanboy of either per se. I am simply looking for honest, solid, objective reviews so that I can make the best HW decision I can for my needs and budget and get the best value for my $ based on the current HW offerings and prices.

After reading this review and almost every comment (all 8 pages) and having some laughs along the way (thanks), I think I am going to go with the AMD Ryzen 9 3900X on an Asus x570 platform.

I always love how the average gamer/fanboy tends to poo-poo on anything they don't personally have because of... jealousy?... bad feels?... ignorance? the realization that their kick-ass rig from 2017 is no longer "top dog"?... or assume that everyone cares only about high-end gaming? (and that no one would ever use a desktop for anything else). There is nuance involved in each person's use case for a desktop.

It seems like the average (non-pro) gamer tends to know a lot about marketing specs, benchmarks, etc, but doesn't have any deeper understanding of the technology and other real-world factors regarding how it all has to work together, beyond a surface-level reading of the advertised specs.

Real-world performance? Hey, "this artificial benchmark graph shows that the bloated marketing propaganda theoretical maximum that this HW can do has a number 30 points higher and a different color line than the bloated marketing propaganda theoretical maximum that this other HW can do" for said pieces of HW. Sorry, I am not really a gamer and so I am not spending $500+ on a GPU only to have it be considered "garbage" next year! More RAM, a better CPU, and faster storage is where I want to invest my $.

I remember 20 yrs ago when people would buy AMD due to budget constraints (Intel was more expensive then too) and then overclock just to get 1 extra fps out of Quake. Seems like the same gamer-focused bs is still going on today.

Overclocking made sense back then when Intel mid-range PCs were easily $2000+ and overall performance wasn't that great for most any software/game title (as compared to today) so you would overclock because the hardware was weak in the sub $1500 PC. But you could save a few $ by going AMD and overclocking.

To me, almost any modern system is pretty damn powerful enough for almost any mainstream task. Overclocking seems like it is more about "coolness points", bragging rights, and potentially shortening the life of your HW for not very much performance gains. Who cares... any HW I choose will be leaps and bounds over my current system. I want a good blend of performance/stability/reliability. My upgrade cycle tends to be long (7-9yrs... ah to be 20yrs old again and irresponsibly blow all my rent $ on an overpriced rig while eating ramen everyday ). I just want objective, real-world performance reviews and not all the fanboy BS I see in the comments on a lot of review sites.

I am not a hardcore gamer. I occasionally play Rocket League and CS:GO. I mostly use Skype, watch YouTube, check email, surf the web, do light A/V editing, programming, and fire up a few VMs. Anything I could purchase today will destroy my 11yr old system. But I am so disappointed that all the Intel fanboys are telling me to go with the Core i7-9700 (currently $348.99 on Amazon) because that was the "sweet spot" 2yrs ago when they bought their pre-built rig, whereas the Ryzen 9 3900X is currently $422 on Amazon and comes with a cooler.

"Oh don't get an AMD... Intel gets 5 more FPS out of <insert game title that I will never play here>" (split hairs much?), and ignore all the other factors that affect overall system performance and have to work together to make a well-rounded "sweet rig".

 

[svliegen]

@a_aramini

I second that. Unfortunately, 99% of all reviews are centered around gaming and getting an extra FPS. I couldn't care less because I never play games on my desktop. For the record, I run a small business and have several desktops, all of them are at least i7 quad cores, but only one of them has a dedicated GPU.

Productivity in office applications (especially large spreadsheets and very large databases), photo and video editing is most important for me and I am willing to invest significantly, if that means saving precious time.

Now if only I could find a decent review that focuses on those aspects, rather than making them an insignificant factor in the end result...