GALAX GeForce RTX 3080 SG review
Palit GeForce RTX 3080 GamingPro review
MSI GeForce RTX 3080 GAMING X TRIO review
ASUS GeForce RTX 3080 TUF Gaming review
GeForce RTX 3080 Founder review
Gigabyte B550 Vision D review
HP EX900 PRO 1TB NVMe SSD review
GeForce RTX 3070, 3080 and 3090 preview & analysis
Be Quiet! Dark Power Pro 12 - 1500 Watt PSU Review
ASUS ProArt PA278QV Monitor Review
AMD Ryzen 7 3800X surfaces in Geekbench, performs roughly similar to Core i9 9900K
It won't be more than a week or two before AMD will unleash its new Ryzen 3000 processors and the X570 platform. We're bound to see some accidental leaks beforehand I guess. The first one starts today as a Ryzen 7 3800X has been spotted.
The eight core Ryzen 7 3800X CPU shows a base clock of 3.8 GHz and a boost of up to 4.5 GHz. From the looks of things, memory was not configured right, at only 2133 MHz - nonetheless, the results are impressive. The test platform had an 3800X paired with a X470 motherboard and achieved a single-core score of 5406, the generic score was 34059 points. If you give the Core i9 9900K with DDR4 set at the same speed all equal then it scores about 1% better in single-threaded performance (has a higher boost of 5.0 GHz), however, in multiple threads, there is a win with close to 5% in favor of AMD. Digging a little further shows a 9900K with ddr4-2666 memory to performs more than 14% better on a single thread and half a percent better in the multi-core test.
These tests, of course, and Geekbench in general, say very little, but do show an indication of what we can expect.
AMD Ryzen 9 3950X: Overclocked to 5 GHz Allcore faster than Intel Core i9 - 06/13/2019 09:01 AM
You've been able to read up on a lot of news and article about the pending Ryzon Series 3000 processors. The one proc that made a lot of news is, of course, the AMD Ryzen 9 3950X, however at the eve...
AMD Ryzen 9 3950X: 16 cores and 32 threads - Labeled as Gaming CPU - released in September - 06/11/2019 03:30 PM
So if you have not watched the live stream (hey I can't blame you as in the EUu that was midnight), and IF you skipped our preview articles, we do need to mention the AMD Ryzen 9 3950X in at least o...
Tech preview: AMD Ryzen 3000 - Incl Ryzen 9 3950X (16-core) - 06/11/2019 01:20 AM
Gen 3 aka Ryzen 3000 has received new announcements. You might have watched the live-stream, well that or you were asleep as that was nighttime in the EU, but in this preview article a deeper overview...
Windows 10 May 2019 Update Causing Issues For Some AMD Ryzen PCs, Fix In This item - 05/31/2019 10:25 AM
A new Microsoft Windows update, a new series of problems, the QA levels of Microsoft are just astonishing. The May 2019 update has problems for users with AMD processor, as well as showing problems w...
AMD Ryzen 9 16-cores CB15 Benchmark (4346 points)? - 05/28/2019 09:34 AM
I'm pretty sure you've followed the Livestream or read our articles on yesterday's Ryzen 3000 announcements. You will have noticed that the Ryzen 9 3900X is the proc with the most cores, 12 of the...
Aura89
Senior Member
Posts: 8010
Joined: 2008-07-31
Senior Member
Posts: 8010
Joined: 2008-07-31
#5682848 Posted on: 06/21/2019 10:30 AM
Oh you're one of those people who are so stuck on intel you think the 3800x requires a x570 board. I'm so sorry for your mindset.
All that shows is how intel hasn't advanced their IPC in quite some time. As well as stated in the article the bench was done with low frequency memory. Also stated in the article that even an intel 9900k with better memory gets a better single-threaded score, and it's already known (unless something changed in Zen2) that AMD loves faster memory.
It's pretty sad though, you can't even find a quad-core 8 threaded processor that is new from Intel anymore, so i guess your older processor is better then current quad-core processors for intel....talk about backwards process'.
Also, your multi-score is pretty horrible, but being the fact it's 5 years old, it makes sense.
Not everything is about single-threaded scores, bud.
Why is everyone saying this is good? Wasn't the 3800X supposed to smoke 9900K? Remember that at this point the 9900K can be found for less than 500€ (472€ shipping included in my country) and that a decent motherboard is going to probably cost less for the 9900K compared to the 3800K, or at the very least the same, if the 3800X is going to cost only 50-100€ less i'm not sure it's such big of a deal.
Oh you're one of those people who are so stuck on intel you think the 3800x requires a x570 board. I'm so sorry for your mindset.
Just did Geekbench on my 5 years old 4790k... I'm not impressed at all.
All that shows is how intel hasn't advanced their IPC in quite some time. As well as stated in the article the bench was done with low frequency memory. Also stated in the article that even an intel 9900k with better memory gets a better single-threaded score, and it's already known (unless something changed in Zen2) that AMD loves faster memory.
It's pretty sad though, you can't even find a quad-core 8 threaded processor that is new from Intel anymore, so i guess your older processor is better then current quad-core processors for intel....talk about backwards process'.
Also, your multi-score is pretty horrible, but being the fact it's 5 years old, it makes sense.
Not everything is about single-threaded scores, bud.
oxidized
Senior Member
Posts: 233
Joined: 2017-08-22
Senior Member
Posts: 233
Joined: 2017-08-22
#5682853 Posted on: 06/21/2019 10:47 AM
Not really. Most of people do not need anything extra. And of someone needs them, then that someone does not have trouble paying for them.
(And it would not be felt as loss of investment.)
Why buy a 3800X then? I mean you can get a x470 no problems, but what's the point, if i buy a new system for example, i'd like to have the best and newest hardware at that point.
Oh you're one of those people who are so stuck on intel you think the 3800x requires a x570 board. I'm so sorry for your mindset.
Never said that, i said that since i'm building a new PC i'd rather buy something newer, possibly with more features and upgrade old ones, than buy older hardware.
Not really. Most of people do not need anything extra. And of someone needs them, then that someone does not have trouble paying for them.
(And it would not be felt as loss of investment.)
Why buy a 3800X then? I mean you can get a x470 no problems, but what's the point, if i buy a new system for example, i'd like to have the best and newest hardware at that point.
Oh you're one of those people who are so stuck on intel you think the 3800x requires a x570 board. I'm so sorry for your mindset.
Never said that, i said that since i'm building a new PC i'd rather buy something newer, possibly with more features and upgrade old ones, than buy older hardware.
Zhyr
Member
Posts: 46
Joined: 2002-06-22
Member
Posts: 46
Joined: 2002-06-22
#5682854 Posted on: 06/21/2019 10:54 AM
You're comparing an overclocked CPU to ones running stock speeds. That's not exactly a valid comparison unless you're looking at performance increases over stock.
Just did Geekbench on my 5 years old 4790k... I'm not impressed at all.
You're comparing an overclocked CPU to ones running stock speeds. That's not exactly a valid comparison unless you're looking at performance increases over stock.
Just did Geekbench on my 5 years old 4790k... I'm not impressed at all.
Kaarme
Senior Member
Posts: 2031
Joined: 2013-03-10
Senior Member
Posts: 2031
Joined: 2013-03-10
#5682857 Posted on: 06/21/2019 11:03 AM
In reality even if you put in as much money as you want, you even can't buy an equivalent mobo for the Intel CPU because it simply can't support PCIe 4.0. So, the equivalent on AMD's side would be one generation older mobo with PCIe 3.0. I don't think they are any more expensive than on the blue side?
Intel might end up being still overall faster due to software having so much legacy Intel optimisation. Nothing AMD can do about it. It's just something that needs to fix itself over time, assuming AMD can stay in the competition this time. And Intel doesn't resort to its usual ugly under the table methods.
Equivalent? It doesn't seem to me they're actually equivalent, they're similar, but not equivalent besides 50-100€ less for the CPU but an equivalent motherboard will probably cost more for the AMD configuration this time, so... that 50-100€ of save might actually be more 50 than 100€, still for a lower performing part, which probably consumes less i give you that, but the 9900K is overall still faster.
In reality even if you put in as much money as you want, you even can't buy an equivalent mobo for the Intel CPU because it simply can't support PCIe 4.0. So, the equivalent on AMD's side would be one generation older mobo with PCIe 3.0. I don't think they are any more expensive than on the blue side?
Intel might end up being still overall faster due to software having so much legacy Intel optimisation. Nothing AMD can do about it. It's just something that needs to fix itself over time, assuming AMD can stay in the competition this time. And Intel doesn't resort to its usual ugly under the table methods.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Junior Member
Posts: 3
Joined: 2019-03-07
Just did Geekbench on my 5 years old 4790k... I'm not impressed at all.