oxidized:

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.

Please stop lying. 100 $/EUR difference in CPU price, and you don't need to buy an expensive X570 motherboard. In this test, there was an X470. But you can use B450 or even B350-X370 if you want.... Plus written above, the 3700X will be much better value, as it will probably be able to be OCd to 3800X levels.

oxidized:

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.

Why do you say that with a GTX 1060 in your rig?

oxidized:

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.

1% faster in single thread while being 4-5% slower in multi thread while having much higher power consumption. Why do you lie?

oxidized:

Not forced, but if you buy a high end CPU you might want a high mobo too, and x470 is high end, but of the previous generation, i guess x570 brings something more to the table than just pcie 4 doesn't it?

Why would you? So you don't even know what extra does the X570 adds but you say you need it. LOL

wotan91:

Just did Geekbench on my 5 years old 4790k... I'm not impressed at all. https://i.imgur.com/oPsCOvb.png

Obvious troll is obvious.

Aura89:

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.

Totaly agree, you can even use it on some 300 chipset, (MSI, Asus and Asrock have bios update ready for them) What make me unhappy is that it is low score (despite being good score) compared to the old gen Intel, even more when you see that Intel will release new one... AMD will have a good but too pricy CPU and hard to get in some country... same story as the Rysen 2000 on high end. Anyway i am really happy with the Athlon GE 200 for my use, one of the best CPU i had.

Not impressed by this new 3800X at the same price level as my 9900k wich can score much higher both single and multi (on air cooling with D15s): https://d1ebmxcfh8bf9c.cloudfront.net/u325844/image_id_2194065.jpeg

Ryzens have an absurdly long branch prediction history that make them appear to have better repetitive tasks than random real-world workflows. Geekbench…. by far one of the worst synthetic tools you can use to compare. I find it interesting there are no leaks using proper benchmarks...….

reflex75:

Not impressed by this new 3800X at the same price level as my 9900k wich can score much higher both single and multi (on air cooling with D15s): https://d1ebmxcfh8bf9c.cloudfront.net/u325844/image_id_2194065.jpeg

Send one i9-9900k for $400 my way 😀

ryzen 7 3800x stronk processor 🙂

reflex75:

Not impressed by this new 3800X at the same price level as my 9900k wich can score much higher both single and multi (on air cooling with D15s): https://d1ebmxcfh8bf9c.cloudfront.net/u325844/image_id_2194065.jpeg

Uhhhh..... the R7 3800X is ≈ $100 less than an i9-9900K AND includes a quality, ≈$30 value Cooler Master cooler.... And did you just simply not read the entire section about the memory only being set to the base 2133MHz speed for this 3800X bench (and how much single-threaded performance is gained with faster memory on Intel [with AMD actually having even larger improvements]), while you're running at 3200MHz here, or are you just too stupid to be able to comprehend what that all means? I guess I'll have to make it stupid simple for you then.... An i9-9900K and Ryzen 7 3800X, both at stock with 2133MHz memory post essentially identical single-threaded scores in Geekbench.

Kaarme:

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.

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. Intel "usual under the table methods" have ceased to exist years ago, but you AMD fans just can't deal with it.

Fox2232:

3700X is of better value. But people buy depending on their budget. That's why notion of paying extra $50~100 makes little sense for comparable products. If one can save that on one component, it can be investment towards something that yields higher value per $. (Like GPU, M.2, or memory in case of productivity system.)

i'd happily pay even 150€ more for a CPU that gives me even "only" 5% more performance in both single and threaded loads

BReal85:

Please stop lying. 100 $/EUR difference in CPU price, and you don't need to buy an expensive X570 motherboard. In this test, there was an X470. But you can use B450 or even B350-X370 if you want.... Plus written above, the 3700X will be much better value, as it will probably be able to be OCd to 3800X levels.

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.

BReal85:

Why do you say that with a GTX 1060 in your rig?

And what has this to do with the fact i have a 1060? Mirror climbing much?

BReal85:

1% faster in single thread while being 4-5% slower in multi thread while having much higher power consumption. Why do you lie?

Check better your numbers...A tip, look at the second image, not the first. Again you're lying to yourself, i'm just using numbers showed.

BReal85:

Why would you? So you don't even know what extra does the X570 adds but you say you need it. LOL

I'd buy the best available my money can buy, and i wouldn't surely buy an old mobo for a flaming new CPU

oxidized:

i'd happily pay even 150€ more for a CPU that gives me even "only" 5% more performance in both single and threaded loads

Would not it be smarter to save $150 or more (since you wrote Euro) and upgrade that HW in your SIG long time ago?

oxidized:

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.

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.....

oxidized:

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.

My wallet is open, but I've still not been pickpocketed.

vbetts:

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

Alex13:

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

I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to get at, but we aren't here to start dumb arguments. Please don't.

Fox2232:

So, it is no big deal to pay $50~100 for each important component of equivalent performance?

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.

Fox2232:

Send one i9-9900k for $400 my way 😀

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.

Fox2232:

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.

vbetts:

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.

schmidtbag:

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.

schmidtbag:

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.

schmidtbag:

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.

Alex13:

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.

oxidized:

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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?

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 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.

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.

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.

oxidized:

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.

oxidized:

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.

oxidized:

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.

oxidized:

"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.

oxidized:

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..

Not at all. Netburst could overclock to 6ghz on LN2 yet showed no real performance difference from 3ghz, mind you that's double the the stock frequency and also at least double if not more power draw and heat. With no scaling, even on an every day overclock which was around 3.5 to 4 ghz or so you are getting no real benefit in performance when scaling is almost none. Bulldozer is a great example of this, 4.5 ghz was very easy on an 8120 from 3.1 ghz stock. That's an increase of 1.45x the clock, yet had almost no real scaling. Overclocking is more than just numbers on clocked frequency, it's how it scales and performs. You can argue Ryzen CPU's only having an increase of 300-400 mhz on average is a bad overclock, but data shows scaling with that overclock is no issue.