• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

AMD Zen 2 (Ryzen 3000) - *** NO COMPETITOR HINTING ***

Ryzen vs Intel at 4GHz

PkRCa4i.png


UkiG3n1.png


9TSk78N.png


qYDEnLJ.png


Gaming differences probably down to:
vHP9wIa.png
 
If was in the market to upgrade I'd go 3700X, not X570 thought due to the horrible fan. Is the Zen 3 going to leap frog in performance or no idea at this time I take it? Would a Zen 3 work in an X470?

IMO 8C/16T is fine for a long time (if you're not streaming).
 
z10m said:
From HW Unboxed:

20190707-192828.jpg
Click to expand...
And at 1440P the difference is 6FPS. Can you notice the differnce between 129fps and 135fps? So 6FPS is the differnce between a £329 3700X and a £449 9900k then you have the lower power consumption and better productivity performance. Dont thionk i could justify buying Intel right now
 
Martini1991 said:
I've spent more on a motherboard before.
I'm currently sitting on an Asus X370 Pro.

I'm hoping to get a PCI-E 4.0 SSD at some point too.
Click to expand...

OC3D are saying the current Gen 4 NVME drives are just as fast on Gen 3 PCI-E boards.

So seems will need to wait for the improved controllers to even start seeing a benefit on Gen 4....if at all.
 
Sin_Chase said:
OC3D are saying the current Gen 4 NVME drives are just as fast on Gen 3 PCI-3 boards.

So seems will need to wait for the improved controllers to even start seeing a benefit on Gen 4....if at all.
Click to expand...

Hmm.
That's a little disappointing.

I know there's new controllers due though.
I just can't imagine sticking a 3900X on anything that wasn't a £250 board.
 
cliffy said:
And at 1440P the difference is 6FPS. Can you notice the differnce between 129fps and 135fps? So 6FPS is the differnce between a £329 3700X and a £449 9900k then you have the lower power consumption and better productivity performance. Dont thionk i could justify buying Intel right now
Click to expand...

You've missed the point of my post entirely.
 
2700X was supposedly same IPC as coffee lake 8700K/9900K but core speed was about 10-15% behind.
With 3700X/3800X AMD bump IPC 10-15% and 5-10% core speed (that is single core turbo which achieves its stated boost during a blue moon or on the 12th of never)
and yet it's still behind in games. I'd like to fantasise the 3800X will bring something new to the table but I'd guess it's 100mhz faster on the core and can sustain 4.4ghz boost
(hopefully without LN2) but I'm spending the £1500 I had earmarked for a beefy new AMD rig on something that can bring me some more enjoyment than 10-15%
gains on my 5 year old CPU. On a side note I'm spending too much time here, last night I dreamed Raja Koduri was at a mate's house party and we sat for a chat.
 
Last edited:
cliffy said:
And at 1440P the difference is 6FPS. Can you notice the differnce between 129fps and 135fps? So 6FPS is the differnce between a £329 3700X and a £449 9900k then you have the lower power consumption and better productivity performance. Dont thionk i could justify buying Intel right now
Click to expand...

The 3900x v the 9900k

It’s not a difficult choice :p

What amazes me is the 3900x has 4 more cores and threads and yet completely destroys the 9900k in power consumption.
 
The only way for AMD to be ahead is if they loaded it with a massive L3 cache, even larger than the current one, it's likely the only reason it will be behind in gaming.

It's simply a fact that chiplets cannot be as quick in accessing data, the problem for intel going forward is that there's no way they can keep the cost down on smaller processes, 10nm is an embarrassment.

Nvidia are even going down this road now.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom