Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
AMD Ryzen R7 3700X & R9 3900X Review
SBFord
Former Associate EditorMember LegendaryPosts: 33,129
AMD Ryzen R7 3700X & R9 3900X Review
Today, AMD launched its latest generation of Ryzen 3000 processors. They’re fast, offering improved speeds, cache, and next-generation PCI Express 4.0. But do they hold up against the heavy hitters from Intel? Join us as we find out!
Comments
You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations.
Odd, the benchmarks i seen showed the AMD beating it...
Surely you aren't one of those people that would think that just because it got a bit more fps the 9900k is better... The 9900k isn't even in the same league in my opinion with the 3900x as for the 3700x... that's even more sad for intel because the $329 CPU is essentially a better buy over the 9900k.
Go check tech channels to see performance on more than 4 games.
Also there was 1 channel that showed a similar situation where the 9900k for some reason had a lot more fps, but once they added OBS the 9900k got lower FPS.
People can argue all they want, but it's a fact that AMD is the better purchase at the moment. They are cheaper yet offer more performance.
Btw it's really strange how in these benchmarks the 8700k beats the 3700x/3900x when it has essentially the same performance as the 3600x and you get slightly more performance only after you OC it to 5GHz, however in order to do that you will have to pay over 80% more to be able to do that, so it's not really even a comparison worth taking into consideration.
Just a note. I made an error in the paragraph above the benchmark results. I've been recovering from surgery all week and was clearly thinking of the 3900X's price compared to the 9900k, not the 3700X. My mistake and the correction is in. It should read:
One thing is for sure, though, the value for the cost here is absolutely outstanding. The processors we’re looking at today come to market at $499 and $329 respectively. Comparing the R7 3700X to its Intel counterpart, the i9-9900K, the 3700X is more than $150 cheaper, while also having an additional 16MB in L3 cache and lower cost of ownership with the reduced TDP, definitely gives the R7 the edge. The R9 3900X is most closely matched with the Intel i9-9920X which retails for a whopping $1199 as a HEDT part. Not only is it $700, but it offers higher clocks and more than three times the L3 cache. Deciding between the two is a no brainer, even while the 9900K remains competitive.
Well to be honest I'm not entirely sure about Nvidia since the RTX super versions seem like the better buy, but Intel is definitely filling that diaper.
Generally I'm surpised that there are still people who support Intel especially from the gaming community. It appears that those people are oblivious that their Ice Lake CPU's are all for laptops. Intel doesn't care about your gaming experience. They care where the money is and currently laptops are generating more sells than desktops. On the other hand AMD is focusing on both gaming and more importantly delivering CPU's that can be used for work as well without having to fork $1k just for a CPU.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
A 50 fps difference in frame rate is very plausible if one CPU offers 400 fps and the other 450. Once the numbers get that large, one would question why you care about that difference, though. We're not talking about the difference between 10 and 60 frames per second.
This brings AMD roughly even into a situation where gamers buying new cards will think carefully whether they want a bit cheaper AMD or pay some extra for NVidia's ray-tracing.
But Intel is in real trouble against AMD.
EDIT: Also do you realize that RTX Supers haven't launched yet. We'll have to wait until launch to see whether they are in stock or not.
Yeah the RX 5700 XT is close to performance to the 2060 super and in some cases the 2070 super.
Also @Vrika ray-tracing isn't just an Nvidia thing. They didn't invent it, so any card can have it + in games as of right now ray-tracing is there just in name, so anyone who buys those cards for that feature are getting kinda scammed. By the time ray-tracing becomes a thing these cards will probably obsolete(well not obsolete, but will be old and outdated).
AMD has done good here by the look of it so far but it's definitely not the Intel killer that everyone was making out it was going to be.
Even if ray tracing support is rare, there are still a lot of AAA games that have or have promised support: Battlefield, Call of Duty, Tomb Raider, Cyberpunk, Metro, Watch Dogs, etc. Most gamers who buy cards as expensive as this will be tempted to spend the $50 extra to see what it would look like with ray tracing.
Always trying to be better then the other but when is it just enough to leave it alone for real computers are fast enough right now specially if it does what you need it to do and are happy with it.
They are coming out with PC upgrades way to fast these days and 95% of the time its not even a upgrade its a sidegrade with very little performance gain not worth wasting money on. It is nice to see AMD finally making some good CPU's compared to what they had 2-3 years ago they have come a long way but even as you can see there price has come up a bit compared to there pricing before. AMD has been king for a while tho when it comes to price to performance even before these new CPU's.
Btw I believe the reason for the higher prices with AMD is 1. If they didn't go with higher prices their older CPU's will have to be given away for free 2. Realistically the new CPU's are genuinely quite a bit more powerful, so in my opinion their value is really on point.
It's true that there are more titles that Intel have the lead than AMD, but the lead we are talking is usually 5-10%. It's rarely more than that and I don't believe that justifies the fact that you will need to pay more to build an Intel PC that can actually pull those numbers(without OC Intel doesn't stand a chance and with OC you need some seriously expensive cooling). At the same time AMD is cheaper at the moment and while ye it might be with slightly less fps in some games you are getting more cores and threads, so the CPU will be relevant for longer plus you can actually do other stuff with the CPU. I mean it's not like you can't do other stuff with the 9700k, heck even the 9400f is good for other stuff beside gaming, but their price is just too much for what you are getting in my opinion.
150$ - i5-9400F if you want just gaming or Ryzen 2600 if you want to stream.
200$ - Ryzen 3600 if you want a step up to for your streaming machine
240$ - i5-9600k - best gaming experience for your money that no Ryzen can beat
Anything more expensive and you are just buying more threads or slight performance gains while performance/cost ratio goes tanks sharply.
Current market lay out is great.
But at $250 and higher prices Intel can still offer good competition to Ryzen because past Ryzen 3600 buying a better Ryzen gives you very little anything good for gaming.
Though unless I'd have really large budget I wouldn't pay more than that Ryzen 5 3600's $200 for any gaming CPU at the moment. That money is better spent on other parts of the gaming computer.