Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
SFLUFAN

PC Tech ~*AMD Ryzen 9 - Official Thread*~

Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, SimpleG said:

MC has them for $499 in stock.

Newegg technically has them, just have to wait 1-2 weeks for it to ship. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My i7 3700k will be retired. Debating between the R5 3600 or R7 3700x. The 3600 is so damn cheap,  and if Ryzen 4000 will be socket AM4 then I'll have a nice upgrade path 2 years from now when six cores won't be enough. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, cusideabelincoln said:

My i7 3700k will be retired. Debating between the R5 3600 or R7 3700x. The 3600 is so damn cheap,  and if Ryzen 4000 will be socket AM4 then I'll have a nice upgrade path 2 years from now when six cores won't be enough. 

 

Wouldnt be better to future proof and go with the 3700x or even the 3900x with its 12 cores? The ps5 is rumored to have an 8 core cpu and that’s a year and a half away.

 

3 months ago i built a new rig with a i7-9700k paired with a 2080. I am kinda mad at myself now because I wish I had waited for these new Ryzen CPUs. The 3900x paired with a new X570 MB would been perfect. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, OldBenKenobi said:

 

Wouldnt be better to future proof and go with the 3700x or even the 3900x with its 12 cores? The ps5 is rumored to have an 8 core cpu and that’s a year and a half away.

 

3 months ago i built a new rig with a i7-9700k paired with a 2080. I am kinda mad at myself now because I wish I had waited for these new Ryzen CPUs. The 3900x paired with a new X570 MB would been perfect. 

Maybe,  but the 3600 is only $200 so I wouldn't lose much if I have to upgrade next year. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

In the majority of controlled tests, AMD has done something they haven’t been able to achieve in almost 15 years, since the tail-end of the Athlon 64's reign in 2005: that is to have a CPU microarchitecture with higher performance per clock than Intel's leading architecture. Zen 2 finally achieves this symbolic mark by a hair’s margin, with the new core improving IPC by 10-13% when compared to Zen+.

 

Having said that, Intel still very much holds the single-threaded performance crown by a few percent. Intel’s higher achieved frequencies as well as continued larger lead in memory sensitive workloads are still goals that AMD has to work towards, and future Zen iterations will have to further improve in order to have a shot at the ST performance crown.

 

What really does make the Ryzen 3700X and 3900X winners in my eyes is their overall packages and performance. They’re outstanding all-rounders, and AMD has managed to vastly improve some of the aspects it was lagging behind the most. While AMD still needs to further push total single-threaded performance in the future and continue working on improving memory performance, they’re on Intel’s tail.

 

Perhaps the best arguments for the 3700X and 3900X is their value as well as their power efficiency. At $329 the 3700X particularly seems exciting, and gamers will want to take note that it posts the same gaming performance as the $499 3900X. Considering that AMD is also shipping the CPU with the perfectly reasonable Wraith coolers, this also adds on to the value that you get if you’re budget conscious.

 

The 3900X essentially has no real competition when it comes to the multi-threaded performance that it’s able to deliver. Here the chip not only bests Intel’s mainstream desktop designs, but it's able to go toe-to-toe with the lowest rung of Intel's more specialized HEDT platforms. Even AMD’s own Threadripper line-up is made irrelevant below 16 cores.

All in all, while AMD still has some way to go, they’ve never been this close to Intel in over a decade. This is no longer the story of the AMD that is trying to catch up to Intel; this is now the story of the AMD that is once more a formidable rival to Intel. And, if the company is able to continue to execute as well, we should be seeing even more exciting things in the future.

 

And, for these reasons, we are awarding AMD's 3rd generation Ryzen processors an AnandTech Editor's Choice Silver award for their value and energy efficiency. AMD has raised the bar indeed.

 

https://www.anandtech.com/show/14605/the-and-ryzen-3700x-3900x-review-raising-the-bar/20

Quote

 

As a value proposition, it's easy to love AMD and its Ryzen processors. Intel sat around making 4-core/8-thread as its top non-HEDT solution for seven years when AMD wasn't really competitive. Then Ryzen comes along and delivers 8-core/16-thread solutions to the masses, and suddenly Intel starts selling 6-core and 8-core mainstream processors. With Ryzen 9 3900X, AMD keeps the pressure on, delivering higher clockspeeds and better latency than its previous generation, with a 12-core/24-thread CPU for the same price as Intel's 8-core/16-thread CPU.

 

Unless gaming performance and more specifically, high framerate gaming is your overriding goal, AMD's third gen Ryzen CPUs are now in the lead. For all the people buying Radeon RX 5700 XT and lower graphics cards—or GeForce RTX 2070 and below from Nvidia—any differences in CPU performance when it comes to gaming are going to be mostly meaningless. A few percent slower or faster won't really matter, and future games may even begin pushing beyond the point where 4-core/8-thread and 6-core/12-thread CPUs are all that's needed.

 

If you've been debating between and AMD or Intel rig for your next PC build, AMD is generally the better pick now. You can get excellent multithreaded performance, gaming performance is close enough that only benchmarks or extremely competitive gamers would likely even notice (and then only with an extreme GPU like a 2080 Ti), and price and features are also in AMD's favor. You get PCIe Gen4 (it doesn't really matter for most people, but like Nvidia's ray tracing support, I'd rather have it than not going forward), you get a dedicated x4 PCIe connection for your primary M.2 NVMe SSD, you get more cores, you even get lower power use. And so far (knock on wood), all of the side-channel attack exploits like Spectre, Foreshadow, MDS, and Fallout target Intel CPUs and don't work on AMD's CPUs. What's more, you get all of that at equivalent or lower prices than you'd pay for Intel.

 

Probably the most important factor is what you're currently using for a PC, and what you plan to do. I've still got an old i7-965 PC that my family uses, and it does everything my wife needs. (But it's "too slow" for me!) And that PC is faster than most of the PCs that my extended family is running. Ouch. For home and office use, modest PCs that are 5 or more years old still continue to work. But if you're an enthusiast or professional, and your PC has a pre-Ryzen AMD CPU or an Intel 7th Gen or earlier processor, now is a great time to upgrade to a Ryzen 3000 system.

 

https://www.pcgamer.com/amd-ryzen-9-3900x-and-ryzen-7-3700x-review-in-progress/#comment-jump

 

It's pretty remarkable to read about what AMD has achieved here. Just a few years ago, everyone was making fun of AMD's faildozer and most people seemed to think they were going to go bankrupt. Here we are and AMD just surpassed Intel in IPC for most applications. And while they can't beat Intel's fastest gaming chips, they are extremely competitive and future proof in the case more threads are utilized. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I might finally be nearing an upgrade cycle and AMD certainly has my attention. It doesn't seem like AMD has made the choice simple, but they're certainly competitive, which is great to see. I haven't had an AMD chip since my Athlon way back when.

 

 

I'm also excited by the idea of greatly improved storage speeds. I wonder how overkill it would be to put two PCIe 4 NVMe drives in RAID 0.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, OldBenKenobi said:

 

Wouldnt be better to future proof and go with the 3700x or even the 3900x with its 12 cores? The ps5 is rumored to have an 8 core cpu and that’s a year and a half away.

 

3 months ago i built a new rig with a i7-9700k paired with a 2080. I am kinda mad at myself now because I wish I had waited for these new Ryzen CPUs. The 3900x paired with a new X570 MB would been perfect. 

Bench marks comparing the 9700k vs the both new AMDs show the 9700k over when it’s comes to games. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Massdriver said:

https://www.anandtech.com/show/14605/the-and-ryzen-3700x-3900x-review-raising-the-bar/20

https://www.pcgamer.com/amd-ryzen-9-3900x-and-ryzen-7-3700x-review-in-progress/#comment-jump

 

It's pretty remarkable to read about what AMD has achieved here. Just a few years ago, everyone was making fun of AMD's faildozer and most people seemed to think they were going to go bankrupt. Here we are and AMD just surpassed Intel in IPC for most applications. And while they can't beat Intel's fastest gaming chips, they are extremely competitive and future proof in the case more threads are utilized

I don't think anyone should buy these chips based on this particular hope. The "extra cores will be better utilized once all software developers get better at threading" idea has been thrown out there every time a chip with a higher thread count has been released, and it's never come true in any meaningful way. The value of additional cores is unlikely to rise over the lifespan of a given CPU. 

 

It certainly seems like these chips are competitive, and there are lots of good reasons to buy them, but hypothetical future performance gains isn't one of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am breaking on the 5700 XT it's only like 15% faster. I am on the treadmill because I am at 1440p,  want to do VR, and want to go ultrawide 1440p. I have the last one set for store pick up. Might just go today after work or tomorrow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

Nothing is future proof.

 

An OC-able to 4.5ghz 2600k was probably as close as we'll ever get to "future proof" :p 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Zaku3 said:

I am breaking on the 5700 XT it's only like 15% faster. I am on the treadmill because I am at 1440p,  want to do VR, and want to go ultrawide 1440p. I have the last one set for store pick up. Might just go today after work or tomorrow.

You might want a faster card if you want ultrawide 1440p -- you're driving ~34% more pixels than regular 1440p.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

You might want a faster card if you want ultrawide 1440p -- you're driving ~34% more pixels than regular 1440p.

I know but I am an AMD/ATI fanboy for GPUs so I am limited by their snail pace of development. I will most likely upgrade this week to a 5700 XT then hold out for high end Navi and upgrade again. Benefits of being single. 

 

Though I technically don't need it I am mainly playing HOI4 but 20 more fps in BFV sounds good. God I love PC gaming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, TwinIon said:

I don't think anyone should buy these chips based on this particular hope. The "extra cores will be better utilized once all software developers get better at threading" idea has been thrown out there every time a chip with a higher thread count has been released, and it's never come true in any meaningful way. The value of additional cores is unlikely to rise over the lifespan of a given CPU. 

 

It certainly seems like these chips are competitive, and there are lots of good reasons to buy them, but hypothetical future performance gains isn't one of them.

I think I just like more power!

 

It did kind of come true, it just moves very slowly. The best example  is the 7700k (4 core 8 thread) vs 7600k. This somewhat correlates with the 8 thread consoles using AMD jaguar cores. 


The next gen consoles will likely be 16 threads which creates incentives for game developers to utilize more. It is very long-term though. We are talking 5 years or so before we see it more often from AAA titles. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Zaku3 said:

I know but I am an AMD/ATI fanboy for GPUs so I am limited by their snail pace of development. I will most likely upgrade this week to a 5700 XT then hold out for high end Navi and upgrade again. Benefits of being single. 

 

Though I technically don't need it I am mainly playing HOI4 but 20 more fps in BFV sounds good. God I love PC gaming.

I will likely be buying big Navi as well next year. I may get a 5700 XT for another machine I may end up building between now and then though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ordered the 3900x, a decent ASUS x570 board, and a rtx 2080ti from micro center. Fun fun this evening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I wanted to go with Ryzen 3000 now, but newegg had a killer combo deal with a ROG Strix AMD x470 motherboard and Ryzen 2600x, for $220 with a promo code.  For the same price as the new 3600, I'm getting a high end motherboard and decent CPU.  So I'm going to give this a shot, since the CPU is practically free with this combo deal.  If I'm not satisfied with the performance I'll probably sell the 2600x and get a 3700x. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, TwinIon said:

I don't think anyone should buy these chips based on this particular hope. The "extra cores will be better utilized once all software developers get better at threading" idea has been thrown out there every time a chip with a higher thread count has been released, and it's never come true in any meaningful way. The value of additional cores is unlikely to rise over the lifespan of a given CPU. 

 

It certainly seems like these chips are competitive, and there are lots of good reasons to buy them, but hypothetical future performance gains isn't one of them.

 

Not on such a hope exclusively, but given that the performance difference on mostly single-threaded games is negligible, you could go with either and not notice a difference even if games remain mostly single-threaded. And if there is any meaningful probability that games will increasingly exploit cores, then the AMD chips have the higher expected value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/10/2019 at 8:51 AM, Dre801 said:

Are they LGA2011? Might be worth an upgrade from my 6700k.  Been at 4.3Ghz for too long. I want 5Ghz+ already.

 

I got my 5700xt need to install it. While i was there 3 other people were picking up online orders for Ryzen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zaku3 said:

Are they LGA2011? Might be worth an upgrade from my 6700k.  Been at 4.3Ghz for too long. I want 5Ghz+ already.

 

I got my 5700xt need to install it. While i was there 3 other people were picking up online orders for Ryzen.

Nah.  In typical Intel fashion, it's expected to be a new socket.  Socket 1159, possibly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Dre801 said:

Nah.  In typical Intel fashion, it's expected to be a new socket.  Socket 1159, possibly.

Damn. I looked over the article after posting and yes it mentioned a new socket.

 

Do you guys think a Ryzen 9 3900x would be a worthwhile upgrade from my 6700k. I have it on 4.3Ghz and feel I could probably get 4.4 at most 4.5 on aircooling? But that new build itch is hitting me with the Ryzen hype. I am already thinking hey I could finally dive into water cooling. 

 

With the most RGB lighting I can get. (I legit blame Linus for getting me into RGB)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Zaku3 said:

Damn. I looked over the article after posting and yes it mentioned a new socket.

 

Do you guys think a Ryzen 9 3900x would be a worthwhile upgrade from my 6700k. I have it on 4.3Ghz and feel I could probably get 4.4 at most 4.5 on aircooling? But that new build itch is hitting me with the Ryzen hype. I am already thinking hey I could finally dive into water cooling. 

 

With the most RGB lighting I can get. (I legit blame Linus for getting me into RGB)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, SimpleG said:

 

It makes no sense to get it but I ain't gonna front that the urge is so powerful I'd buy it if microcenter had stock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/10/2019 at 5:51 AM, Dre801 said:

Disappointing that Intel's answer will still be on 14nm (now +++!) and still have PCIe 3.0. In the end the lithography doesn't really matter and it'll be a little while before PCIe 4 is terribly useful, but it's still disappointing. I'm sure that with higher clocks and more cores these new chips will be quite capable, but it still seems like a weak response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...