Question Ryzen 3800x

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Bob Bobson

Great
Apr 19, 2019
159
9
95
2
It would only draw significantly more in heavily threaded loads, where it should also perform significantly better. In lightly threaded loads I'd expect power draw to be similar between the two.
Yup, that sounds about right. But is that supposedly small power increase worth the extra heat output? Probably not, also it's almost 20% more in price for me so not worth it
 

TJ Hooker

Illustrious
Herald
Yup, that sounds about right. But is that supposedly small power increase worth the extra heat output? Probably not, also it's almost 20% more in price for me so not worth it
I'm not sure you're understanding me. In lightly threaded loads power draw, and therefore heat output, should be about the same. Depending on how aggressively the chiplets are binned it could even be lower on the 3800X. Power/heat should only be significantly higher in heavily threaded loads (along with a commensurate performance increase).

Edit: Note how the difference in power (heat) between a 65W 3700X and a 105W 3900X is small until you get to 10+ threads loaded.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/14605/the-and-ryzen-3700x-3900x-review-raising-the-bar/19
 
Last edited:

Bob Bobson

Great
Apr 19, 2019
159
9
95
2
I'm not sure you're understanding me. In lightly threaded loads power draw, and therefore heat output, should be about the same. Depending on how aggressively the chiplets are binned it could even be lower on the 3800X. Power/heat should only be significantly higher in heavily threaded loads (along with a commensurate performance increase).

Edit: Note how the difference in power (heat) between a 65W 3700X and a 105W 3900X is small until you get to 10+ threads loaded.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/14605/the-and-ryzen-3700x-3900x-review-raising-the-bar/19
I did understand. More threads in heavy use, bigger the difference in heat output. But since I won't benefit much in multithreaded use by couple of % difference (occasional test renders outside my workplace) I just might enjoy the lower tdp at high workloads, since it seems to be quite a difference. I mostly do heavy lifting at work, but I start renders at home at night, so lower tdp means less of a noise for me.
 

TJ Hooker

Illustrious
Herald
Ah, OK. Well yeah, if you don't care about increased multi threaded performance then obviously the 3800X doesn't make sense. But I'm not sure why you think there'd only be a couple % difference in multithreaded performance (which is what you seem to be saying).
 

Bob Bobson

Great
Apr 19, 2019
159
9
95
2
Ah, OK. Well yeah, if you don't care about increased multi threaded performance then obviously the 3800X doesn't make sense. But I'm not sure why you think there'd only be a couple % difference in multithreaded performance (which is what you seem to be saying).
From the few sources I found it appears to be so. I know userbenchmark is what it is. But it doesn't tend to be much off the real numbers. And now the 3800x looks like its will be 5 percent better at best possible situation.
 

rigg42

Prominent
Oct 17, 2018
561
170
640
15
If micro center pricing on Intel trickles down to Amazon and New Egg I think these 8 core ryzen CPU's are a lot less attractive as high refresh gaming CPU's. I think I'd grab the 9900k/9900 at $450/$420 over the 3800x at $400 and the 9700k/9700 at $330/300 over the 3700x at $330. The 3600/3600x kill the 8 gen and i5 or below 9th gen SKU's in value though. The 8700k /8600k/9600k overclocked would be compelling but the cooler and mobo requirements kind of kill their value against the new R5's.
 
Reactions: TJ Hooker
If micro center pricing on Intel trickles down to Amazon and New Egg I think these 8 core ryzen CPU's are a lot less attractive as high refresh gaming CPU's. I think I'd grab the 9900k/9900 at $450/$420 over the 3800x at $400 and the 9700k/9700 at $330/300 over the 3700x at $330. The 3600/3600x kill the 8 gen and i5 or below 9th gen SKU's in value though. The 8700k /8600k/9600k overclocked would be compelling but the cooler and mobo requirements kind of kill their value against the new R5's.
Sounds about right, except that, for anything that you may want to do besides gaming, AMD has the value advantage even at those price points. Intel has to go under AMD in pricing this time around to get an advantage in every aspect.

Cheers!
 

rigg42

Prominent
Oct 17, 2018
561
170
640
15
Sounds about right, except that, for anything that you may want to do besides gaming, AMD has the value advantage even at those price points. Intel has to go under AMD in pricing this time around to get an advantage in every aspect.

Cheers!
I don't disagree. For a pure 8 core gaming build I think Intel is still pretty compelling though.
 

Bob Bobson

Great
Apr 19, 2019
159
9
95
2
Sounds about right, except that, for anything that you may want to do besides gaming, AMD has the value advantage even at those price points. Intel has to go under AMD in pricing this time around to get an advantage in every aspect.

Cheers!
Not even the gaming, 9700k might have slight edge right now, but since games are starting to be able to use more threads, I'm sure 3700X will be better in the future even for gaming. 9900K is not worth it at all, maybe if it dropped down to 400 than people might consider it. I somehow can't imagine intel dropping its prices so low though
 

rigg42

Prominent
Oct 17, 2018
561
170
640
15
Not even the gaming, 9700k might have slight edge right now, but since games are starting to be able to use more threads, I'm sure 3700X will be better in the future even for gaming. 9900K is not worth it at all, maybe if it dropped down to 400 than people might consider it. I somehow can't imagine intel dropping its prices so low though
With a powerful enough GPU even at 1440p its actually a pretty significant edge in a lot of games. The 9900k is already down to $450 at Micro Center. If that's "not worth it all" than the 3800x isn't either. I'm an AMD guy at heart but I still think the 8 core Intel parts are an interesting proposition vs the 8 core AMD stuff FOR SOME PEOPLE. I think the value is in the 6 and 12 core parts from AMD personally. Just playing devils advocate here. I think a lot of us, myself included, got so caught up in the excitement and hype surrounding the Ryzen 3K launch that we are glossing over some of the Intel options a bit to dismissively. If the 10th gen leak has any truth to it there should be some serious competition sooner than later. Either way we the consumers are the winners.
 

Bob Bobson

Great
Apr 19, 2019
159
9
95
2
With a powerful enough GPU even at 1440p its actually a pretty significant edge in a lot of games. The 9900k is already down to $450 at Micro Center. If that's "not worth it all" than the 3800x isn't either. I'm an AMD guy at heart but I still think the 8 core Intel parts are an interesting proposition vs the 8 core AMD stuff FOR SOME PEOPLE. I think the value is in the 6 and 12 core parts from AMD personally. Just playing devils advocate here. I think a lot of us, myself included, got so caught up in the excitement and hype surrounding the Ryzen 3K launch that we are glossing over some of the Intel options a bit to dismissively. If the 10th gen leak has any truth to it there should be some serious competition sooner than later. Either way we the consumers are the winners.
You must consider games tended to favor intel to a point, and that the 9700K is out much longer. 3700X still has its bugs and it will get better over time. Maybe not to that good to close the gap in single core performance. But think, that few years ago, 4 cores 4 threads was considered enough for gaming, as is with 8 core/8 thread now. But give it year or two and i will bet you that 8/8 wont be enough. Even now some games are able to use more threads. Also new consoles are coming out, so that "bottleneck" is about to fall. More threads will get you far then less threads in years to come. In my opinion. Also, for some reason a lot of those FPS benchmarks are using low memory sticks, not sure why, but i would like to see 3700X with some realistic RAM, at 3200+ since during its lifespan it will most likely be paired with sticks of 3600 and more

All that is in gaming only scenario of course

Time will tell
 
Last edited:

xravenxdota

Respectable
Aug 26, 2017
259
30
1,840
10
With a powerful enough GPU even at 1440p its actually a pretty significant edge in a lot of games. The 9900k is already down to $450 at Micro Center. If that's "not worth it all" than the 3800x isn't either. I'm an AMD guy at heart but I still think the 8 core Intel parts are an interesting proposition vs the 8 core AMD stuff FOR SOME PEOPLE. I think the value is in the 6 and 12 core parts from AMD personally. Just playing devils advocate here. I think a lot of us, myself included, got so caught up in the excitement and hype surrounding the Ryzen 3K launch that we are glossing over some of the Intel options a bit to dismissively. If the 10th gen leak has any truth to it there should be some serious competition sooner than later. Either way we the consumers are the winners.
Actually on 1440p and 4k there's little difference hell even my 2600x can game on 1440p as your mostly gpu bound.Intel maybe gets 5-10fps faster which are not worth it.There are no value in the 9600-9900k series.9900k are only good if your a competitive gamers which needs to highest fps on 1080p.Be real you don't buy a 3700x or a 9900k to play on 1080p.So the amd are a better bang for your buck by far.It's a 329usd that runs the same as a 500 usd cpu in 1440p and 4k.No1 will notice 5 fps difference.
 

rigg42

Prominent
Oct 17, 2018
561
170
640
15
Actually on 1440p and 4k there's little difference hell even my 2600x can game on 1440p as your mostly gpu bound.Intel maybe gets 5-10fps faster which are not worth it.There are no value in the 9600-9900k series.9900k are only good if your a competitive gamers which needs to highest fps on 1080p.Be real you don't buy a 3700x or a 9900k to play on 1080p.So the amd are a better bang for your buck by far.It's a 329usd that runs the same as a 500 usd cpu in 1440p and 4k.No1 will notice 5 fps difference.
Yeah that's actually a pretty fair argument. I looked over benchmarks again and it is about 0-15 FPS at 1440p and well above 100 FPS across the board with a 2080 ti. This gap goes up a bit with an overclocked CPU though. Most people will have a GPU that's a tier below that at best where the difference is probably nullified for the most part. I agree that 1080p is kind of dumb for a 9900k and 2080ti but I'm sure there are people who do it who aren't pro gamers. I don't think a 9700 (k) is out of the question for 1080p though.

The CPU is kind of irrelevant at 4k with current GPU's. I use a 1600 in my living room PC.
 

Bob Bobson

Great
Apr 19, 2019
159
9
95
2
Yeah that's actually a pretty fair argument. I looked over benchmarks again and it is about 0-15 FPS at 1440p and well above 100 FPS across the board with a 2080 ti. This gap goes up a bit with an overclocked CPU though. Most people will have a GPU that's a tier below that at best where the difference is probably nullified for the most part. I agree that 1080p is kind of dumb for a 9900k and 2080ti but I'm sure there are people who do it who aren't pro gamers. I don't think a 9700 (k) is out of the question for 1080p though.

The CPU is kind of irrelevant at 4k with current GPU's. I use a 1600 in my living room PC.
Still its a decision between 3700X as Jack of all trades, which will get better with time (there is also that rumored bios bug that holds down ryzen 3000 overclocks) and current 9700k as Master of gaming, but at the peak of its prime, but bound to be outdated
 

rigg42

Prominent
Oct 17, 2018
561
170
640
15
You must consider games tended to favor intel to a point, and that the 9700K is out much longer. 3700X still has its bugs and it will get better over time. Maybe not to that good to close the gap in single core performance. But think, that few years ago, 4 cores 4 threads was considered enough for gaming, as is with 8 core/8 thread now. But give it year or two and i will bet you that 8/8 wont be enough. Even now some games are able to use more threads. Also new consoles are coming out, so that "bottleneck" is about to fall. More threads will get you far then less threads in years to come. In my opinion. Also, for some reason a lot of those FPS benchmarks are using low memory sticks, not sure why, but i would like to see 3700X with some realistic RAM, at 3200+ since during its lifespan it will most likely be paired with sticks of 3600 and more

All that is in gaming only scenario of course

Time will tell
While I don't disagree, and I've stated this argument myself, I think this is a better argument used against the i5's. By the time 8 physical cores isn't cutting it both CPU's will be irrelevant.

3200 CL 14 is what most of the benchmarkers are running. It's actually lower latency than 3600 cl 16 although it's slightly lower bandwith. In any practical sense its not going to make a bit of difference. The tech spot review did some comparisons.
 

Bob Bobson

Great
Apr 19, 2019
159
9
95
2
While I don't disagree, and I've stated this argument myself, I think this is a better argument used against the i5's. By the time 8 physical cores isn't cutting it both CPU's will be irrelevant.

3200 CL 14 is what most of the benchmarkers are running. It's actually lower latency than 3600 cl 16 although it's slightly lower bandwith. In any practical sense its not going to make a bit of difference. The tech spot review did some comparisons.
Well i'm feeling much safer, putting my eggs in multithreaded basket, given that consoles are Rumored to use hyperthreaded cpus (probably, you guessed it 8/16), meaning that games should be able to use multithreaded processors much more then up until now. Anyhow, i will wait some time, before i will be recommending either of those. I think now is time to wait and see, at least a month, until things settle and Bioses get fixed.
 
Well, current gen consoles use AMD 8 core Jaguar CPUs, but even a PC port like GTAV likes Intel CPUs better than AMD CPUs.

Also, consoles using 8 core CPUs didn't seem to speed up games relying on multithreading either. This might have to do with the console games only having access to like 6 cores because of the os using 1 or 2.

Not sure how much the consoles using AMD 16 thread chips will make desktop games like AMD 16 thread chips.
 
Reactions: TJ Hooker

Bob Bobson

Great
Apr 19, 2019
159
9
95
2
Well, current gen consoles use AMD 8 core Jaguar CPUs, but even a PC port like GTAV likes Intel CPUs better than AMD CPUs.

Also, consoles using 8 core CPUs didn't seem to speed up games relying on multithreading either. This might have to do with the console games only having access to like 6 cores because of the os using 1 or 2.

Not sure how much the consoles using AMD 16 thread chips will make desktop games like AMD 16 thread chips.
Well, that PS4 cpu is well out of the league of its Intel PC counterparts of the time. That is not the case today. And those were 8/8 cores. I think its safe to say, if a game is being developed for a 8/16 console CPU (likely to be in new gen consoles), it will be able to use those extra threads. Otherwise, what would be the point. And if that would be the case, having a 8/16 CPU like 9900k or 3700x should prove beneficial over the 8/8 CPUs.. correct?
 
Well, that PS4 cpu is well out of the league of its Intel PC counterparts of the time. That is not the case today. And those were 8/8 cores. I think its safe to say, if a game is being developed for a 8/16 console CPU (likely to be in new gen consoles), it will be able to use those extra threads. Otherwise, what would be the point. And if that would be the case, having a 8/16 CPU like 9900k or 3700x should prove beneficial over the 8/8 CPUs.. correct?
Yes, 8/16 will prove usefull eventually over 8/8 as consoles get more cores and AMD keeps pushing higher and higher core count CPUs to the desktop market. Currently, not so much. The SMT overhead can even reduce framerates in certain cases.
 

Bob Bobson

Great
Apr 19, 2019
159
9
95
2
Yes, 8/16 will prove usefull eventually over 8/8 as consoles get more cores and AMD keeps pushing higher and higher core count CPUs to the desktop market. Currently, not so much. The SMT overhead can even reduce framerates in certain cases.
Also look at 9600K, it has horrible low % frame drops, when it caps at 100% usage, and that is 6 core CPU. Nothing of that like happens with 6/12 ryzen 3600. I just think that time of games using hyperthreading is slowly coming, and exchanging that over 10ish FPS now in games. Thats a good deal for me.

If you don't mind me asking. If i were to give you one or the other, which CPU would you pick personally?
 
3600 obviously. I have genuinely considered buying a 6 core ryzen cpu lately since my poor little 1200 isn't cutting it anymore.

Im just saying, i dont think the consoles will do much for game optimization. Maybe a little, but not much.
 
I'm not sure on the i7 9700K keeping an edge for long in games, as the same was said about the i5 8600K with it's 6 cores. They are, in all newest games, capped.

So, there is an argument to be made about having as many cores as your money can buy in the short term for games...

Cheers!
 
Reactions: Bob Bobson

ASK THE COMMUNITY