[SOLVED] Ryzen 3000 is here!

[Phaaze88]

Are you happy, or disappointed? Or perhaps both?
They definitely spanked Intel's booty in productivity. Gaming, on the other hand... guess Intel's challenge was warranted this time.
Overclocking hasn't improved at all on these chips(might even be worse), so Intel still has an edge on them here.

But they're cheaper! Or are they really?
Depending on the application, productivity or gaming, and relative performance, they may not be all that much less than than their Intel counterpart.
From a gaming perspective, you have the 3600 right on the 8700k's(the overall best Intel cpu for a while) tail, for about half the price as the latter - great, right? But then think about how long the 8700k has been out...
Then there's the 3700x somewhere between the 8700k & 9700k. $330 vs $400 9700k(price dropped further recently, but still more than 3700x). This one looks far more attractive than the 3600 did.
Finally, the 3900x. Not any better than 3700x in performance, and it's around the same price as the 9900k, but you're getting four extra cores. This right here would be the new gaming/streaming MASTER - if you can afford it. I still pity those who already sold off their 9900ks in anticipation for this. If they weren't at least doing both gaming/streaming(or other task), they're going to be disappointed.

Can't really say much on productivity, but those faster rendering times(in the seconds) do add up.
I need some who deals with these on a regular basis to tell me if the gain is that great or not.

 

[MrN1ce9uy]

From a strictly gaming perspective, I am a bit disappointed; but on the other hand, I'm happy because I don't have to immediately run out and purchase Ryzen 3000. I would agree with you (much to some people's disagreement) that Intel is kinda cheaper (or let's say "better bang for your buck") since I could have bought the more expensive Intel 9900K last year and it is still faster than AMD's new Ryzen 3000 CPUs. If I want AMD's new fastest CPU (that's still slower than Intel) I'll have to fork out another $330-$400 or even $500.

Did anyone actually sell their 9900K for this? I can see if they were doing productivity, but not really since ThreadRipper has been out for a while now. Selling the 9900K for something we already knew was on par as far as single-threaded goes would have been stupid.

All that said, I'm not going to feed the machine any more than I already have. Ryzen 2000 is fast enough for comfortable gaming and that's all I need. I'm glad Ryzen 3000 is even faster and AMD did a good job. I look forward to seeing them gain some more market share from this incredible line of CPUs and further the competition between the two rivals.

 

[Phaaze88]

...
Did anyone actually sell their 9900K for this? I can see if they were doing productivity, but not really since ThreadRipper has been out for a while now. Selling the 9900K for something we already knew was on par as far as single-threaded goes would have been stupid.

All that said, I'm not going to feed the machine any more than I already have. Ryzen 2000 is fast enough for comfortable gaming and that's all I need. I'm glad Ryzen 3000 is even faster and AMD did a good job. I look forward to seeing them gain some more market share from this incredible line of CPUs and further the competition between the two rivals.

I'm dead serious. I've seen some posts here and on other forums that I bounce around to. Bloody ridiculuous. Granted, there were some trolls, but not all of 'em.

AMD appear to be spot on with their advertised IPC increase, which is great! Too bad on the OC potential. I wouldn't even recommend doing it with these chips, as the gain(s) are so terrible.
These cpus probably aren't finacially worthwhile for people who already have Ryzen 2600^, and 8700k^.

 

[AllanGH]

::: shrug :::

If I suddenly get in a hurry, I'll probably move to a Ryzen 3K in a couple of years....

 

[MrN1ce9uy]

Yeah, I was expecting 5.0GHz from Ryzen 3000. That would have made it worth my while, possibly.

 

[xravenxdota]

Tbh i see no need to upgrade my 2600 to a 3xxx series.It's fast enough for my action rpg's and my emulator games.I am advising my friend to rather buy the 2700x as they are dirt cheap at the moment and i predict they will drop more.I have to say on productivity even on adobe amd crushed it.the 3900x stronger than a threadripper 2920x which are more expensive.On the gaming front intels still the king.One thing is that the ryzen 3xxx series are still cheaper than the 9xxx series cpu's.Clock for clock amd's faster cept for games proven by hardware unboxed but they can't reach 5ghz if they could intel would have been in serious trouble.

 

[Phaaze88]

LOL! Darkbreeze made a cameo on Linus' Ryzen 3900x and 3700x Review!

 

[MrN1ce9uy]

LOL! Darkbreeze made a cameo on Linus' Ryzen 3900x and 3700x Review!

Where can we see that?

 

[NightHawkRMX]

I already messaged him lol.
https://ibb.co/tCNFyV3

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3aEv3EzMyQ

 

[maestro0428]

Im glad AMD has gotten it together. Competition is good. If I were to build a rig today, it would be Ryzen powered.

 

[NightHawkRMX]

I have seriously been considering one of the 7nm Ryzen 3 CPUs whenever they launch as long as they have more than 4 threads. I don't want one of the 12nm APUs, but whenever an Igpu-less 7nm CPU comes out for like $100, I would consider it. Otherwise, I may consider a used 2600.

Ryzen 3 (like a 2200g) and Ryzen 3000 naming is confusing.

 

[AllanGH]

Im glad AMD has gotten it together.

Well, the past decade was a set-back for them; but they had their poop in a group back in the '386 days, and were kicking Intel's nalgas all over the place.

It's nice to see them working up to their potential, now; and Intel needs the kick in the split to get them to stop crowing about the 4004 being first (only because they bought it back from Busicom, BTW) and do something innovative for a change.

 

[NightHawkRMX]

Finally, the 3900x. Not any better than 3700x in performance, and it's around the same price as the 9900k, but you're getting four extra cores.

Maybe not any better for gaming, but...
Explain this:

Adobe Premier has previously hated AMD and now we see the 3900x beating a 9900k. There is also a good margin in between the 3900x and 3700x in this very commonly used application.

 

[NightHawkRMX]

But they're cheaper! Or are they really?
Depending on the application, productivity or gaming, and relative performance, they may not be all that much less than than their Intel counterpart.

They perform similarly or slightly behind in gaming, destroy Intel in productivity, and are definitely cheaper. Ryzen 3000 CPUs also include PCIe 4 SSD support, which is great for content creators.

Ryzen 3000 CPUs include a stock cooler and don't require a beefy $75 cooler.
Also, they certainly will cause cheaper power bills.

https://imgur.com/tuCM4iZ

View: https://imgur.com/tuCM4iZ

Also, you can use sub $100 b450 boards with bios flashback to update the bios to support the very efficient Ryzen 3000 CPUs rather than having to spend $150 or more on a board that doesnt go up in flames with a 200w 9900k.

 

[Phaaze88]

Maybe not any better for gaming, but...
Explain this:

Adobe Premier has previously hated AMD and now we see the 3900x beating a 9900k. There is also a good margin in between the 3900x and 3700x in this very commonly used application.

The link's broken, but: I have no way to explain that one, it's over my head, thus the last 2 lines in my first post.
The 3800x would fill that gap between the two.

They perform similarly or slightly behind in gaming, destroy Intel in productivity, and are definitely cheaper. Ryzen 3000 CPUs also include PCIe 4 SSD support, which is great for content creators.

Ryzen 3000 CPUs include a stock cooler and don't require a beefy $75 cooler.
Also, they certainly will cause cheaper power bills.

https://imgur.com/tuCM4iZ

View: https://imgur.com/tuCM4iZ

Also, you can use sub $100 b450 boards with bios flashback to update the bios to support the very efficient Ryzen 3000 CPUs rather than having to spend $150 or more on a board that doesnt go up in flames with a 200w 9900k.

They are certainly cheaper, yes, but I'm going to give exception to the 3600 in games. It offers 8700k performance, but that's been out for how long? Almost 2 years. It leaves the weakest impression of the lineup.
The other 2 have a lot more going for them, especially the 3900x, and in professional work.

The power thing is doesn't amount to much of anything, at least with cpus. It matters more with gpus, but nothing significant still.
The few extra bucks you'll save on the power bill in a few years' time isn't even enough to make the step up to the next performance tier when you're ready to upgrade again.

 

[NightHawkRMX]

It offers 8700k performance, but that's been out for how long? Almost 2 years.

And it still costs hundreds more than the 3600. Lets see if they discount them.
Also, the 3600 beats the 9700k in some scenarios, and that chip is new, so your point is nullified.

 

[NightHawkRMX]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/antony...-old-ryzen-owners-look-away-now/#29ac8f33d549

Adobe Premiere Pro

"Adobe Premier was slightly compressed at the top, but nonetheless, the Ryzen 9 3900X was the fastest CPU at stock speed offering noticeably better performance than the similarly-priced Core i9-9900K and amazingly even beats the Threadripper 2920X despite it sporting quad-channel memory. A crazy fact to consider is that the Ryzen 9 3900X costs the same as the Ryzen 7 1800X did at launch two years ago, yet the former was 41% faster here. Well done AMD. The Ryzen 7 3700X meanwhile was also much faster than the Ryzen 7 2700X it replaces and it also kept up with the far pricier Core i9-9900K, leaving the Core i7-9700K in its dust."

 

[Emplehod]

From a strictly gaming perspective, I am a bit disappointed; but on the other hand, I'm happy because I don't have to immediately run out and purchase Ryzen 3000. I would agree with you (much to some people's disagreement) that Intel is kinda cheaper (or let's say "better bang for your buck") since I could have bought the more expensive Intel 9900K last year and it is still faster than AMD's new Ryzen 3000 CPUs. If I want AMD's new fastest CPU (that's still slower than Intel) I'll have to fork out another $330-$400 or even $500.

Did anyone actually sell their 9900K for this? I can see if they were doing productivity, but not really since ThreadRipper has been out for a while now. Selling the 9900K for something we already knew was on par as far as single-threaded goes would have been stupid.

All that said, I'm not going to feed the machine any more than I already have. Ryzen 2000 is fast enough for comfortable gaming and that's all I need. I'm glad Ryzen 3000 is even faster and AMD did a good job. I look forward to seeing them gain some more market share from this incredible line of CPUs and further the competition between the two rivals.

9900k is only faster in certain benchmarks but it's $500 compared to a high price of $329, not to mention the Intel motherboards are about twice as expensive and the chip draws over 95 watts compared to 65 on the 3700X. 65 watts doesn't even require a fan to cool it.

People see a 3% increase in FPS in games and think the Intel is so much faster. 3% isn't noticeable, but $160 is.

 

[NightHawkRMX]

9900k is only faster in certain benchmarks but it's $500 compared to a high price of $329, not to mention the Intel motherboards are about twice as expensive and the chip draws over 95 watts compared to 65 on the 3700X. 65 watts doesn't even require a fan to cool it.

The 9900k actually draws closer to 200w under load. Intel records TDP at the base clock. TDP and power draw aren't the same.

The 3700x does draw a lot less power as shown here:

Spoiler

https://imgur.com/tuCM4iZ

View: https://imgur.com/tuCM4iZ

 

[Emplehod]

And it still costs hundreds more than the 3600. Lets see if they discount them.
Also, the 3600 beats the 9700k in some scenarios, and that chip is new, so your point is nullified.

3700X costs less than 8700K and has +33% faster multi core processing.

 

[NightHawkRMX]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0uB17Io2is
3600 and 8700k are tied for games.
3700x is a better option, but Id rather have the 3600 since its soo much cheaper.

 

[nicholas70]

I have to say I'm really impressed by AMDs new cpus. Sure they might not edge out intel in gaming, but they are close enough that this could change within the next year.