Scythe Mugen 5 Rev.C CPU Cooler review
be quiet Pure Loop 2 FX 280mm LCS review
HP FX900 1 TB NVMe Review
Scythe FUMA2 Rev.B CPU Cooler review
SK Hynix Platinum P41 2TB M.2 NVMe SSD Review
Corsair K70 RGB PRO Mini Wireless review
MSI MPG A1000G - 1000W PSU Review
Goodram IRDM PRO M.2 SSD 2 TB NVMe SSD Review
Samsung T7 Shield Portable 1TB USB SSD review
DeepCool LS720 (LCS) 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...
DeskStar
Senior Member
Posts: 1307
Joined: 2011-01-11
Senior Member
Posts: 1307
Joined: 2011-01-11
#5682957 Posted on: 06/21/2019 03:25 PM
Just why that memory speed.....?!?
Are they trying to slow it down on purpose as to not throw it all out there as of yet?? Performance wise that is.
Maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan things are surely stacking up for a new build....
One that is secure and won't be destroyed in the performance aspect by hardware limitations and or sorry mitigations having to take place.
Haven't turned on my SandyBridge desktop in months just to be sure.....
Just why that memory speed.....?!?
Are they trying to slow it down on purpose as to not throw it all out there as of yet?? Performance wise that is.
Maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan things are surely stacking up for a new build....
One that is secure and won't be destroyed in the performance aspect by hardware limitations and or sorry mitigations having to take place.
Haven't turned on my SandyBridge desktop in months just to be sure.....
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 6670
Joined: 2012-11-10
Senior Member
Posts: 6670
Joined: 2012-11-10
#5682958 Posted on: 06/21/2019 03:28 PM
Comparable how? Intel doesn't have any PCIe 4.0 boards for the 9000 series. If you don't care about PCIe 4.0 then you can save yourself a big chunk of cash and get a 400 or 300 series board, making your point about cost moot.
Considering how hard you're retaliating, seems to me it is you who "can't deal with it".
I'm not sure I understand what you're complaining about here... You were basically saying that the price difference of the 3800X vs the 9900K wasn't to your liking, and yet, here you are saying you'd pay ~30% more for a 5% performance difference. So.... why did you bring up price if it isn't actually an issue to you? Make up your mind.
Uh.. the first 2 gens were largely the same design made from the same facility. Zen2 functions very differently, is made by a different facility, at a substantially different node size. The boost clocks prove that Zen2 will OC better than previous gens. Are they going to OC better than Intel? Probably not, but they will ostensibly OC "high enough" for most people who don't want to commit to liquid cooling.
Well they said their mobos would be more expensive this time, not sure how much, but even before they weren't that far off from intel mobos, it's safe to assume that comparable mobos will cost at the very least the same, yes they'll have pcie 4, which is ok, but totally useless at this time, and for at least another couple of years. Intel might end up faster because they make better silicon and they've been improving it for too many years now, software optimization is only a little part of it.
Comparable how? Intel doesn't have any PCIe 4.0 boards for the 9000 series. If you don't care about PCIe 4.0 then you can save yourself a big chunk of cash and get a 400 or 300 series board, making your point about cost moot.
Intel "usual under the table methods" have ceased to exist years ago, but you AMD fans just can't deal with it.
Considering how hard you're retaliating, seems to me it is you who "can't deal with it".
i'd happily pay even 150€ more for a CPU that gives me even "only" 5% more performance in both single and threaded loads
I'm not sure I understand what you're complaining about here... You were basically saying that the price difference of the 3800X vs the 9900K wasn't to your liking, and yet, here you are saying you'd pay ~30% more for a 5% performance difference. So.... why did you bring up price if it isn't actually an issue to you? Make up your mind.
Ryzen are shi**y overclockers, it was so the first gen, it was so the second, it'll be so the third. It's not me lying, it's you people lying to yourself.
Uh.. the first 2 gens were largely the same design made from the same facility. Zen2 functions very differently, is made by a different facility, at a substantially different node size. The boost clocks prove that Zen2 will OC better than previous gens. Are they going to OC better than Intel? Probably not, but they will ostensibly OC "high enough" for most people who don't want to commit to liquid cooling.
RzrTrek
Senior Member
Posts: 2549
Joined: 2012-04-16
Senior Member
Posts: 2549
Joined: 2012-04-16
#5682962 Posted on: 06/21/2019 03:36 PM
My wallet is open, but I've still not been pickpocketed.
My wallet is open, but I've still not been pickpocketed.
Calmmo
Senior Member
Posts: 2400
Joined: 2003-12-15
Senior Member
Posts: 2400
Joined: 2003-12-15
#5682966 Posted on: 06/21/2019 03:39 PM
he's just a fool who can't understand what fab limitations are how or why the are related to anything that a chip can do. Zen's limit was because.. GlobalFoundries. you shouldn't have responded really as it's not applicable to the unknown that is TSMCs 7nm
Just to clarify something, a cpu that can clock up to say 5 ghz from 4 ghz does not make it a good overclocker, it's how well that chip scales per clock. Ryzen scales very well from say 3.6 ghz to 4.1 ghz no problem. Conroe chips scaled very well to their clocks as well. Recent performers though from Intel while yes the overclock does help on them, but I would say from Ivy Bridge to current overclock scaling has gone down some in Intel. You may have 1.25x the clock from reference but a number of apps do not scale on that either.
he's just a fool who can't understand what fab limitations are how or why the are related to anything that a chip can do. Zen's limit was because.. GlobalFoundries. you shouldn't have responded really as it's not applicable to the unknown that is TSMCs 7nm
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Moderator
Posts: 15143
Joined: 2006-07-04
Ryzen are shi**y overclockers, it was so the first gen, it was so the second, it'll be so the third. It's not me lying, it's you people lying to yourself.
Just to clarify something, a cpu that can clock up to say 5 ghz from 4 ghz does not make it a good overclocker, it's how well that chip scales per clock. Ryzen scales very well from say 3.6 ghz to 4.1 ghz no problem. Conroe chips scaled very well to their clocks as well. Recent performers though from Intel while yes the overclock does help on them, but I would say from Ivy Bridge to current overclock scaling has gone down some in Intel. You may have 1.25x the clock from reference but a number of apps do not scale on that either.