• 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 ***

Already expected, some reviewers already leaked news that Ryzen 3000 is not a good overclocker.

The out of the box speed is basically what you get unless you use LN2 and 1.7v
 
Grim5 said:
Already expected, some reviewers already leaked news that Ryzen 3000 is not a good overclocker.

The out of the box speed is basically what you get unless you use LN2 and 1.7v
Click to expand...

Not a good overclocker? 4.4ghz on 12 cores is amazing. Then you add the IPC advantage, it will destroy the 9920X.
 
muon said:
Keeping an eye on geekbench as results come in are awesome. The X570 Aorus board results look like they report actual clocks.

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/search?utf8=✓&q=ryzen+3900x

I've surmised that the 3900X likely overclocks to 4.4ghz all core. However, that isn't actually much better than stock on an X570.

3700X is also interesting to see below.

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/search?utf8=✓&q=ryzen+3700x
Click to expand...
That is very interesting, it doesnt come close to a 9900k in single thread, highest I saw from 3700x 3800x and 3900x was 5900 sc. With even a mac book beating that with over 6100 sc. But a 5ghz 9900k had 6400 sc
I hope I am tripping
 
Grim5 said:
Already expected, some reviewers already leaked news that Ryzen 3000 is not a good overclocker.

The out of the box speed is basically what you get unless you use LN2 and 1.7v
Click to expand...

Seems the 3700x is expected to be a good clocker due to the lower tdp
 
Illuminist said:
That is very interesting, it doesnt come close to a 9900k in single thread, highest I saw from 3700x 3800x and 3900x was 5900 sc. With even a mac book beating that with over 6100 sc. But a 5ghz 9900k had 6400 sc
I hope I am tripping
Click to expand...

Remember geekbench has always been something that massively favours Intel.

https://browser.geekbench.com/processor-benchmarks

It's only useful for comparing the improvement from the 2700X to the 3700X/3800X, and it is massive. (Only a single 3800X result there though, and it's a really old one).
 
muon said:
Keeping an eye on geekbench as results come in are awesome. The X570 Aorus board results look like they report actual clocks.

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/search?utf8=✓&q=ryzen+3900x

I've surmised that the 3900X likely overclocks to 4.4ghz all core. However, that isn't actually much better than stock on an X570.

3700X is also interesting to see below.

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/search?utf8=✓&q=ryzen+3700x
Click to expand...
Two 3700X results on the same board with 3600 MT/s RAM, one at stock (3.6 GHz base, 4.4 GHz boost), another at 4.3 GHz fixed (likely manual OC). Basically sacrifices a small amount of ST performance (0.5%) for a small MT boost (2.5%). Probably not worth it unless you're doing heavy MT work.

Also indicates small OC headroom even on this 65 W chip, but of course we have no idea what cooling was used, etc.

Comparing 2133 MT/s v 3600 MT/s results shows a ~10% difference in this benchmark. I would 't be surprised if the gap was larger in some other memory latency intensive applications like gaming though.
 
Last edited:
kitfit1 said:
Oh ffs don't be silly. 3600 Cas14 is fairly easy on Ryzen+, should be a cakewalk on Ryzen 2 and should be on Intel as well. 4133c12 is only possible on Intel if the ram is under LN2, you know that as well as i do.........................so why even mention it if it was just a "gaming IPC test" ?
Click to expand...
True. What Ram kit are You rocking atm ??
 
Isn't it better to invest in a better motherboard and higher frequency ddr4, rather than worrying about the difference between cl14/cl15/c16? Lower cas latency doesn't come cheaper either.

I know not everyone wants a gaming CPU, but this is where there have been tangible benefits in benchmarks. You can also get noticably higher memory read and write rates (in benchmarks at least). Plus, if you can get hold of the frequencies closer to DDR5, there is less reason to upgrade in the future. Or, am I missing something?
 
g67575 said:
Isn't it better to invest in a better motherboard and higher frequency ddr4, rather than worrying about the difference between cl14/cl15/c16?
Click to expand...
Historically lower latency 3200 can beat loose timings of 3600. Of course tight timings on higher clocked memory can be had too.

Lets see what the reviews say!
 
If I was going to buy an x570, wouldn't it make sense to buy the best memory that I could afford? Like DDR4 4000 - DDR4 4800. Especially if I invested in a premium board already.

Or, maybe a high spec x470, but tbh, the x570 are probably better in most ways and cost a similar amount. I think they could be more future proof too.
 
muon said:
Not a good overclocker? 4.4ghz on 12 cores is amazing. Then you add the IPC advantage, it will destroy the 9920X.
Click to expand...

Seconded! my 4790k can happily push ~5700 in geekbench @4.8: https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/compare/13740371?baseline=11560980

Which equates to around ~195 CB15 SC

And that's great. It only falls down from the fact it only has 8 threads. I think the 3700/3800/3900 will be on par or better SC/gaming than an 8700k, except with far better MC performance. And considering the latter, and coffee refresh are at the limit of their efficiency, I think Ryzen 2 is shaping up to be a great product
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom