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...
Senior Member
Posts: 1176
Joined: 2006-07-06
You don't get it. AMD has to smoke Intel by 50% but Intel can keep releasing incremental upgrades at a high price point

Who expected the 3800x to smoke the 9900k (a cpu released not even 1 year ago for almost 500$)? That's not even the best Ryzen 2 cpu that will be available this year. If it can perform as good and force Intel to cut their price that's extremely good in my book.
BTW why do people care. That's synthetic benchmarks.

I would like too they are currently sold 650$ CAD in Canada which equate to 480$ USD. The 9700k is sold 510$ CAD which equate to 385$ USD i.e. the msrp price of the 3800x. Most expensive Z390 motherboards are sold at 375 to 400$ CAD which equate to 283 to 300$ USD.
Senior Member
Posts: 234
Joined: 2017-08-22
Would not it be smarter to save $150 or more (since you wrote Euro) and upgrade that HW in your SIG long time ago?
No because i didn't feel the need, besides i bought a 1060, since i was interested in some videogames upon launch. I mainly used my PC to play videogames, now it's changing, i started with new job, in which i need a powerful CPU more than anything, and maybe the time to upgrade has come, even if i'd happily save my money.
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.
No, overclock means overclock, first gen ryzen could clock maximum 200Mhz which is nothing, not matter how they "scale" whatever it means, IPC is ok, but it's overclock we're talking about, and Ryzen CPUs are not good overclockers, full stop.
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".
If it's the only feature x570 brings i might very well think about getting a good x470, but releasing a new chipset just because it supports pcie 4.0 is pretty stupid, and i hope it's not only that.
"Retaliating" ? What? I'm merely stating facts, i honestly thought the 3800X would've smoked 9900K, or at least that seems like the case after AMD showed their tests and all, but apparently, after some third party tests we're seeing here, i'd replace "smoked" with "barely scratched" if at all.
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.
The price difference between 3800X which is 399$ at launch (it'll probably be 399€ for europeans, at least for 3 to 4 weeks), and 9900K now (i can buy it from a very good shop at 472€ shipping included) don't really sound anything to get excited about, after seeing these tests here, it's surely not a bad processor at a bad price, but I (and not everyone, i'm talking like myself here) would spend those 80€ more to get a faster 9900K, that's me, but also from an objective point of view, it's not that much of an advantage getting a processor that performs worse in most case scenarios for only ~80€ less, AMD pricing was more aggressive last 2 generations, now they're trying make as much money as possible with their products, which is something they're entitled to, and i'm happy they're doing it (since intel has done it for years and keeps doing it), but me as a consumer i have to weigh both the scales, pros and cons of both, and for me the 9900K outweights 3800X at this point, now if it was to cost less, say for example 329, that would give an advantage to the 3800X. Finally, the price isn't an issue for me, i was both talking in my perspective, and then in a more objective way. And also, price is not an issue, but i still use money to pay, and i'd be happy to spend less ofc, money is important for everyone, but it's not like we're talking about a big difference in price, as i said i'd be more than happy to spend that extra 80€ to get a faster CPU for my kind of usage (which is gaming and CorelDRAW) much lower latency, no hassle with finding a high frequency memory kit because otherwise i lose performance, and finally a much better mounting system for the socket.
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.
The boost Zen2 reaches proves nothing about overclock-ability of the CPU, most likely it will overclock a couple of hundred of Mhz like its predecessors, but at least this time they start from a higher frequency.
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
LMAO.
Senior Member
Posts: 6691
Joined: 2012-11-10
Consider the following:
The 3800X is supposed has a base clock of 3.9 and a boost of 4.5. As everyone knows, the advertised boost clocks are the highest potential clocks the CPU can achieve from factory, and do not affect all cores simultaneously.
If we stick with your 200MHz bump, you OC the 3800X to 4.7GHz. That's all cores. I don't care what you think, that is a tremendous performance improvement over all cores operating at 3.9GHz. That's objectively a very good overclock.
And even then... 4.7GHz on 8 cores is nothing to scoff at. Most people won't have a need to go any higher than that.
Well, it isn't the only difference (at the very least, there are also more lanes and better VRMs) but PCIe 4.0 and out-of-the-box support for Zen2 is the main selling point of those boards.
You're challenging everything everyone is saying. That is retaliation. Most of what you're saying is personal opinions, not facts.
I don't see why you (or anyone) would think the 9900K would be smoked. Zen2 is the 2nd coming of Zen, not the 2nd coming of Jesus. I know there's a lot of hype surrounding Zen2 but there's not going to be anything miraculous.
Under no circumstances should anyone, fan or hater, should take claims made by the manufacturer seriously (this applies to all brands). They should be used as flak against the company if the product doesn't live up to its claims, but these brands always cherry-pick results.
Products are priced based on what they're capable of and what people ware willing to pay. Just because it's AMD, doesn't mean it needs to be 25%+ cheaper, if it otherwise has competitive performance (which, if we are to trust these leaks, suggests the 3800X is). Although I don't really see what it is the 9900K does better for its price difference (we have no proof of what the 3800X can do, good or bad), if that's really how you feel, what are you waiting for?
If price isn't an issue then you wouldn't have brought it up. If price wasn't an issue you would opt for an X299 platform. If you already know Intel does what you want well, why not just go ahead and buy them? Nobody is going to judge you for buying what suits your needs with money that you are willing to devote to this build. We will, however, judge you for making claims about a product based on leaks and rumors.
Yes... it does. The boost clocks almost always tell you that all cores can be pushed to the boost clocks assuming you have sufficient power delivery and cooling. As stated before, 4.5GHz is a good speed to achieve, especially when you've got 8+ cores to cool off.
Senior Member
Posts: 162
Joined: 2019-04-26
No because i didn't feel the need, besides i bought a 1060, since i was interested in some videogames upon launch. I mainly used my PC to play videogames, now it's changing, i started with new job, in which i need a powerful CPU more than anything, and maybe the time to upgrade has come, even if i'd happily save my money.
The price difference between 3800X which is 399$ at launch (it'll probably be 399€ for europeans, at least for 3 to 4 weeks), and 9900K now (i can buy it from a very good shop at 472€ shipping included) don't really sound anything to get excited about, after seeing these tests here, it's surely not a bad processor at a bad price, but I (and not everyone, i'm talking like myself here) would spend those 80€ more to get a faster 9900K, that's me, but also from an objective point of view, it's not that much of an advantage getting a processor that performs worse in most case scenarios for only ~80€ less, AMD pricing was more aggressive last 2 generations, now they're trying make as much money as possible with their products, which is something they're entitled to, and i'm happy they're doing it (since intel has done it for years and keeps doing it), but me as a consumer i have to weigh both the scales, pros and cons of both, and for me the 9900K outweights 3800X at this point, now if it was to cost less, say for example 329, that would give an advantage to the 3800X. Finally, the price isn't an issue for me, i was both talking in my perspective, and then in a more objective way. And also, price is not an issue, but i still use money to pay, and i'd be happy to spend less ofc, money is important for everyone, but it's not like we're talking about a big difference in price, as i said i'd be more than happy to spend that extra 80€ to get a faster CPU for my kind of usage (which is gaming and CorelDRAW) much lower latency, no hassle with finding a high frequency memory kit because otherwise i lose performance, and finally a much better mounting system for the socket.
If you need more powerful CPU and don't mind spending 80€ more for it, then instead of buying a 9900k for $470 you should look at the 3900x, which has 8 more threads and same single-threaded performance for just $30 more. That's 50% more threads for ~8% more money. Or, you know, save $70 and pick a 3800x that should perform about the same as a 9900k, since <5% performance delta is imperceptible in the real world.
Also, your statement of "lower latency" (compared to what?) and "hassle with finding high frequency memory kits" is pretty silly.
Here is one kit I found in 5 seconds:
https://www.amazon.com/Corsair-Vengeance-3200MHz-Desktop-Memory/dp/B016ORTNI2?th=1
Please stop making things up to complain about.
No, overclock means overclock, first gen ryzen could clock maximum 200Mhz which is nothing, not matter how they "scale" whatever it means, IPC is ok, but it's overclock we're talking about, and Ryzen CPUs are not good overclockers, full stop.
The boost Zen2 reaches proves nothing about overclock-ability of the CPU, most likely it will overclock a couple of hundred of Mhz like its predecessors, but at least this time they start from a higher frequency.
If stock Ryzen performs close/the same as a 9900k @5ghz, then what's the point of comparing overclockability? It's literally the same performance with less/same hassle. You could argue that the 9900k can go to 5.2ghz, but that's only 200mhz as well, and we don't know how much further Ryzen can clock, but AMD has stated that with good cooling their Precision Boost can easily add another 100mhz to those Zen2 processors, so that's pretty much the same performance again, and with no manual overclock.
If it's the only feature x570 brings i might very well think about getting a good x470, but releasing a new chipset just because it supports pcie 4.0 is pretty stupid, and i hope it's not only that.
Intel released many new chipsets with far less features, and even broke compatibility between generations for no good reason (Skylake to Coffee-lake). So x570 is far more relevant than many other historical chipset launches.
"Retaliating" ? What? I'm merely stating facts, i honestly thought the 3800X would've smoked 9900K, or at least that seems like the case after AMD showed their tests and all, but apparently, after some third party tests we're seeing here, i'd replace "smoked" with "barely scratched" if at all.
All the leaks point at the 3800x either being as fast as the 9900k or slightly faster/slower. So I don't know how you got to this "barely scratched" conclusion, since we're talking about two processors that perform about the same with a $70 price difference. Choice here is pretty obvious.
Moderator
Posts: 15143
Joined: 2006-07-04
I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to get at, but we aren't here to start dumb arguments. Please don't.