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

[chroniclard]

Its a seriously good overall package from AMD, vastly superior. Gaming difference is there but not enough to worry about. Should be excellent with decent cooling too.

 

[Kashinoda]

The biggest thing for me is overclocking seems to do nothing to gaming numbers for Ryzen 3000, often reporting lower frames.

So whilst @ 1080p the 3700X and 3900X are 5% slower on average vs Intel at stock. Those 9700K and 9900K chips have a lot of headroom.

B450 and 3700X for me this week anyway

 

[Stephanie Peterson]

I think its power limits in place, until pbo is sorted out they will hit there limiters.

 

[RavenXXX2]

you got done by intel mate

The biggest thing for me is overclocking seems to do nothing to gaming numbers for Ryzen 3000, often reporting lower frames.

So whilst @ 1080p the 3700X and 3900X are 5% slower on average vs Intel at stock. Those 9700K and 9900K chips have a lot of headroom.

B450 and 3700X for me this week anyway

all core is 4.7ghz so you think an extra 300 mhz oc is going to do much....

 

[StriderX]

For gaming, which is for most people around here the most intensive task, the 9700k is everything you need.
The rest (HT), as long as 8 Cores remain enough, serves no purpose whatsoever.

I mean, it's not me being a fanboy or anything, but 9700K and 9900K are still the best for gaming.
Old, expensive and warm. But still be best, nonetheless.

But it's not just about people "around here", there's a cost benefit analysis that clearly favours AMD. If someone is willing to spend that much on a CPU in the first place, they would be dumb not to play at 1440p 144Hz, Ultrawide or 4K, as that's their equivalent output. The only difference being a single game with limited playerbase at 1080p.

If you can justify the 9700k then that's your choice, but the objective one is not simply one-sided, because money is an object.

 

[LeMson]

******* lol at playing at 720p in 2019, really? come on.

Removes GPU, puts focus on CPU, which is handy in a CPU benchmark

 

[willhub]

So could these actually overclock more than 4.4 for 3700x?

 

[N19h7m4r3]

It is game dependant of course but if you play all games, the 9900k still seems the best option.

Each to their own though. My next upgrade won’t be Intel. Was thinking 3900x to 3950x but will wait for things to mature bit, wait to see what happens with bios updates and ram timings.

Definitely! The 3900x is right up my alley.

I do game, but not too much. The upgrade over my 5820k will be huge, and when I do game it’s at 3440x1400.

Although if just gaming, the 3700x, and 9700k seem the best choices.

I might be waiting also. Especially for RAM, but also comprehensive motherboard reviews, and how loud those X570 chipsets will get when loaded with some pice4 ssds.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

For gaming, which is for most people around here the most intensive task, the 9700k is everything you need.
The rest (HT), as long as 8 Cores remain enough, serves no purpose whatsoever.

I mean, it's not me being a fanboy or anything, but 9700K and 9900K are still the best for gaming.
Old, expensive and warm. But still be best nonetheless.

Do you promise in the next 3 to 4 years a Core i7 9700K will be equal to a Core i9 9900K in all games?? Because I think it is incredibly short sighted to be recommened an 8C/8T part when consoles are already moving to Zen2 based 8C/16T next year.

This reminds me of all the Core i5 7600K owners on here telling people not to buy a Core i7 7700K or a Ryzen CPU. Not sure if that increasing is working out.

 

[keyser]

I was hoping for a table like this: https://www.anandtech.com/show/13400/intel-9th-gen-core-i9-9900k-i7-9700k-i5-9600k-review/22 Maybe later.

 

[StriderX]

Removes GPU, puts focus on CPU, which is handy in a CPU benchmark

Perhaps, but as with synthetics, utterly useless in reality.

Is the 7-8% perf at an irrelevant resolution worth paying 12% more?

 

[andy_mk3]

Would love to see how the 3900x performs under water, if it gives some better thermal headroom for OC or PBO?

 

[Robert896r1]

In the hardware unboxed review the thing that stuck out to me was how often hyperthreading hurt the 9900k vs the 9700k in gaming.

Anyone else noticed that?

 

[SiDeards73]

For gaming, which is for most people around here the most intensive task, the 9700k is everything you need.
The rest (HT), as long as 8 Cores remain enough, serves no purpose whatsoever.

I mean, it's not me being a fanboy or anything, but 9700K and 9900K are still the best for gaming.
Old, expensive and warm. But still be best nonetheless.

Think you'll find for many of us on 1440p or higher res (im on 3440px1440p) that theres going to be almost zero difference between the 9900k and the new Zen2 stuff in most games, except the price and the fact anything making use of as many cores as possible is going to be better on the newer AMD Stuff.

So yeah Intel retains its single threaded lead for now by minimal margins at 1080p and almost negligible at any res above that

Of course most current Intel owners can feel smug coming in here with their purchase, much like Zen2 owners will feel smug when / If more games come along that tax the core counts of CPU's, as those 9700k's will be the first Intel chips to feel it

End of the day were all enthusiasts, AMD has done a massive service to the CPU industry, competition is good for us all.

 

[razorpakk]

But it's not just about people "around here", there's a cost benefit analysis that clearly favours AMD. If someone is willing to spend that much on a CPU in the first place, they would be dumb not to play at 1440p 144Hz, Ultrawide or 4K, as that's their equivalent output. The only difference being a single game with limited playerbase.

I agree, but I'm still disappointed.

For 500£ I got Aorus Pro Wi-Fi and 9700k, which is (right now) the best gaming can get, and is really not much more expensive than 3700X with a B450/

Do you promise in the next 3 to 4 years a Core i7 9700K will be equal to a Core i9 9900K in all games?? Because I think it is incredibly short sighted to be recommened an 8C/8T part when consoles are already moving to Zen2 based 8C/16T next year.

This reminds me of all the Core i5 7600K owners on here telling people not to buy a Core i7 7700K or a Ryzen CPU. Not sure if that increasing is working out.

Well that's just now how I think, I'll keep having a job and buying another CPU in a few years won't be a problem, I'm not buying a car

But I see your point.

 

[8 Pack]

It does nothing extra by watercooling 3900x

9900k is the gamers cpu..

The all rounder is the 3800x, 3900x depending on cores needed for your tasks...

 

[Phil Smith]

Would love to see how the 3900x performs under water, if it gives some better thermal headroom for OC or PBO?

Pretty sure it'll short the electronics and brick everything

 

[B1gbeard]

Definitely! The 3900x is right up my alley.

I do game, but not too much. The upgrade over my 5820k will be huge, and when I do game it’s at 3440x1400.

Although if just gaming, the 3700x, and 9700k seem the best choices.

I might be waiting also. Especially for RAM, but also comprehensive motherboard reviews, and how loud those X570 chipsets will get when loaded with some pice4 ssds.

I’m planning on doing more streaming, editing and what not so aye either the 3900 or 3950 seem a no brainier. Might try and hold out for the new TR as well, see what they do with that.

 

[Robert896r1]

Would love to see how the 3900x performs under water, if it gives some better thermal headroom for OC or PBO?

Not much. Derbau8r already did this on his channel.

 

[ninezerofive]

In the hardware unboxed review the thing that stuck out to me was how often hyperthreading hurt the 9900k vs the 9700k in gaming.

Anyone else noticed that?

Shhh, nobody talks about it. It also runs like 10 degrees cooler, but nobody talks about that too.