OcUK Ryzen 3000/Zen 2 review thread

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

DF still recommended the Ryzen 7 3700X, and they said the fact it also did fine on it stock cooler when compared to the Core i7 9700K,and was overall better value,once you included the cooler and broad motherboard compatibility.

 

[Nghtmare]

True but not relevant in DF's choice of cooler.

In my opinion when comparing CPUs, the same cooler should be used because that will give you a fair comparison of how each CPU behaves/scales. Using the stock cooler helps customers have an idea of how the CPU works out of the box, if they decided not to go for a 3rd party option.

 

[triss]

In my opinion when comparing CPUs, the same cooler should be used because that will give you a fair comparison of how each CPU behaves/scales. Using the stock cooler helps customers have an idea of how the CPU works out of the box, if they decided not to go for a 3rd party option.

Hard to use a stock cooler when the 9700k and 9900k dont have one. And even if it did could you really compare them as AMD's are far better than the old intel ones.

 

[Nghtmare]

Hard to use a stock cooler when the 9700k and 9900k dont have one. And even if it did could you really compare them as AMD's are far better than the old intel ones.

I mean using Stock just to show how the CPU will perform under an "out of the box" scenario. But to compare the 3900X to the 9900K for example, the same cooler should be used. Ive seen reviews where they use AMD stock cooler and then on the Intel counterpart a 360 AIO, which in my opinion is very unfair.

 

[MrMarvelous]

Guys is there any graphs of the 3700x/3800x v.s a 4930k?

I'd like to compare to see if it's worth upgrading.

 

[peahead]

Ive seen reviews where they use AMD stock cooler

The 3900X does not need a beefy cooler that is why they are using the stock cooler in tests

 

[nomadd]

I mean using Stock just to show how the CPU will perform under an "out of the box" scenario. But to compare the 3900X to the 9900K for example, the same cooler should be used. Ive seen reviews where they use AMD stock cooler and then on the Intel counterpart a 360 AIO, which in my opinion is very unfair.

Agree with you to a certain extent, but it wouldn't have materially changed anything in DF's results.

DF is really focussed around gaming. Switching the AMD setup to use an AIO, rather than the already excellent stock cooler, wouldn't have made any noticeable difference to their gaming benchmarks; multiple reviewers have already commented on this in their own reviews. Ryzen 3000 just doesn't appear to be very overclockable silicon at present; probably never will be.

Roll on 7nm+ and Ryzen 4000.

 

[chrcoluk]

You have plenty of reviews out there with what you want, as I said its nice DF did this so there is variety, otherwise you just get 1 million clones of the same review.

 

[Hotwired]

Ryzen 3000 just doesn't appear to be very overclockable silicon at present; probably never will be.

Roll on 7nm+ and Ryzen 4000.

You sound hopeful but I don't see overclocking in AMD's visible future.

They maxed out the clockspeeds at default and did it while keeping power reasonable. Which is completely fine.

If they get any more clockspeed I can see them doing the same again.

Overclocking hasn't been "free" performance for a while. Intel has been levying a tax if people want cpu controls and now AMD is simply not leaving any headroom.

I don't think it's a bad thing for people to get all the potential performance out of the box with the AMD cpus. It would be akin to complaining that a new car doesn't need tuning.

 

[Nutella33]

Ah yes. But those are workstation class tasks. I think games are far more reactive to memory speed.

At least that's what I thought?

That's kinda my point though. If we are seeing that difference in workstation tasks, i'd expect games to show a similar or greater improvement.

Or rather one review put it like this: "Ryzen 3000 gaming performance is not as reactive to memory speed as Ryzen 1000 and 2000."

Certainly seems the case so far though.
https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/t...-2133-2400-2933-3200-3733-4000-4200.18860401/

Seems to show quite a case by case basis of improvement, especially in 1%/0.1% lows instead of general average rises.

 

[opethdisciple]

That's kinda my point though. If we are seeing that difference in workstation tasks, i'd expect games to show a similar or greater improvement.


Certainly seems the case so far though.
https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/t...-2133-2400-2933-3200-3733-4000-4200.18860401/

Seems to show quite a case by case basis of improvement, especially in 1%/0.1% lows instead of general average rises.

Ryzen 3000's professional app performance is staggering. If this was translatable to FPS in game then Intel wouldn't stand a chance.

When my 3700x arrives I'm gonna try and run my ram at 3600MHz.

 

[Orange Nexus]

That's kinda my point though. If we are seeing that difference in workstation tasks, i'd expect games to show a similar or greater improvement.


Certainly seems the case so far though.
https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/t...-2133-2400-2933-3200-3733-4000-4200.18860401/

Seems to show quite a case by case basis of improvement, especially in 1%/0.1% lows instead of general average rises.

As much as we appreciate the work put in by the op in that thread, i think more tests need to be done. Increasing the speed while maintaining same timings like CL14.
Similar to what another member found with his own testing going from 3200 CL14 to 3533 CL14. Any appreciable increase in Cinebench scores might translate to an increase in fps in games, especailly minimums.

https://i.imgur.com/W0BetUQ.jpg

That's a 50 pts more in Cinebench. Ryzen systems with high-end gpu can benefit the most - imo.

 

[humbug]

DF still recommended the Ryzen 7 3700X, and they said the fact it also did fine on it stock cooler when compared to the Core i7 9700K,and was overall better value,once you included the cooler and broad motherboard compatibility.

A lot of reviewers did this and i don't think it's fair, i've been watching a lot of 3600 reviews and on the stock cooler its only boosting between 3.9Ghz and 4Ghz, my own on a 120mm AIO is boosting between 4.1 and 4.2Ghz, that's 5%.

To me something is off with that, Ryzen comes with a Box cooler, fine, use it, but then if you're going to use a £20 cooler for Ryzen why would you use a £150 cooler for the 9700K / 9900K knowing it wouldn't boost to 4.7Ghz / 5Ghz with anything less? a lot of them are also not clocking the RAM up on Ryzen.

Maybe AMD should stop providing Box Coolers to force reviewers to give these Ryzen chips a fair showing, eh?

Anyway, 3600 vs 9600K, i can tell you he has not got the 3600 running on the box cooler in this.

 

[Woodsta888]

Indeed to make tests fair you have to make the variables the same. Cooling being one of them.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

A lot of reviewers did this and i don't think it's fair, i've been watching a lot of 3600 reviews and on the stock cooler its only boosting between 3.9Ghz and 4Ghz, my own on a 120mm AIO is boosting between 4.1 and 4.2Ghz, that's 5%.

To me something is off with that, Ryzen comes with a Box cooler, fine, use it, but then if you're going to use a £20 cooler for Ryzen why would you use a £150 cooler for the 9700K / 9900K knowing it wouldn't boost to 4.7Ghz / 5Ghz with anything less? a lot of them are also not clocking the RAM up on Ryzen.

Maybe AMD should stop providing Box Coolers to force reviewers to give these Ryzen chips a fair showing, eh?

Anyway, 3600 vs 9600K, i can tell you he has not got the 3600 running on the box cooler in this.

And then there's the overall package itself. The Ryzen 7 3700X is more power efficient than the Core i7 9700K and it doesn't require extreme cooling to offer optimal performance. In fact, the supplied Wraith Prism cooler is effectively overkill for the thermal output of the chip, and will contain the extra heat generated by overclocking (though this is limited somewhat as you won't get more than a couple of hundred megahertz extra out of the chip). In contrast, the Core i7 9700K doesn't ship with a cooler - but its overclocking headroom is a bit more significant, though not game-changingly so.

Fast memory of at least 3000MHz is recommended, and it's swiftly becoming a standard in the marketplace, and we're lucky in that AMD allows for overclockable memory to run on both high-end and mid-range motherboards, while at the same time, the use of the AM4 socket means that the 3700X should run just fine in the vast majority of existing boards out there. On top of that, the inclusion of PCI Express 4.0 support on boards using the X570 chipset means that future graphics cards and - more importantly - faster storage are now viable on a mainstream platform. PCIe 4.0 won't have a dramatic impact on gaming, but the fact that Intel's mid-range boards don't allow users to run their RAM at speeds beyond the chip specification is something that really has to change. If we can find a game that loses seven per cent of performance on an i7 9700K dropping from 3600MHz to 3000MHz, what would that drop be on a non-Z board where we're limited to 2666MHz memory bandwidth?

And finally, we need to talk about price. The Ryzen 7 3700X is £320/$330 up against the £379/$409 Core i7 9700K. Prices on the Intel chip are dropping in the US, but in the UK the price deficit as things stand pays goes a long way towards buying a 2x8GB 3200MHz DDR4 memory kit - and remember, all the cooling you'll need is already in the box and you won't have to pay over the odds for motherboard to run that memory at full frequency. Intel is faster in games (sometimes appreciably so, often not by that much) and it can overclock to 5.0GHz - the question is whether those advantages are worth what is - in real terms, system-wide - a big price premium.

I think you are missing the point they are making - they say you can get a few 100MHZ with better cooling,but ultimately as a package out of the box AMD is just better value,once you factor things like the additional cost of cooling into the build.

Edit!!

Look at the top rated comment on the article:

I ordered one of these as an upgrade to my Ryzen 5 1600... it's great I can use the same motherboard and get a 30-60% jump in performance at the same 65 watts and don't have to spend more money on a cooler. Really nice showing for AMD.

 

[humbug]

Indeed to make tests fair you have to make the variables the same. Cooling being one of them.

Yeah, Hardware Unboxed in a separate review compared power consumption and clock speed AIO vs Box cooler, on the AIO Ryzen used a little more power, and boosted higher, what a surprise that isn't to me.
Ryzen 3000 behaves a lot like Pascal GPU's, the cooler you can keep them the higher they clock themselves.

Look at those reviews i posted, 3600 under a proper cooler. 3600 @ <4.2Ghz 498 FPS, 9600K @ 4.3Ghz 423 FPS that's a difference of 18% to the 3600, side by side video runs don't lie like slides so easily can.

5% or so might not sound like a lot but where they are this close it maters. https://www.techspot.com/review/1877-core-i9-9900k-vs-ryzen-9-3900x/

 

[Orange Nexus]

Indeed to make tests fair you have to make the variables the same. Cooling being one of them.

GN did a test of how temp affects boost on Ryzen. Starting from 55c. As the temp went up the boost went down.

https://i.imgur.com/YwB2ClQ.jpg

 

[humbug]

I think you are missing the point they are making - they say you can get a few 100MHZ with better cooling,but ultimately as a package out of the box AMD is just better value,once you factor things like the additional cost of cooling into the build.

Edit!!

Look at the top rated comment on the article:

"Its not performing as well as it could with a proper cooler, but the point we want to make in this CPU performance review is 'its great value', AMD again with the lack of performance but hey-ho at least they are cheap"

No! i'm sure AMD are sick of being seen as the "budget option" FFS let it stretch it's legs and put a proper cooler on it instead of strangling it and perpetuating the "budget plebeian option" that has plagued AMD for a decade.

These CPU's are fast, let them fly...

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Yeah, Hardware Unboxed in a separate review compared power consumption and clock speed AIO vs Box cooler, on the AIO Ryzen used a little more power, and boosted higher, what a surprise that isn't to me.
Ryzen 3000 behaves a lot like Pascal GPU's, the cooler you can keep them the higher they clock themselves.

Look at those reviews i posted, 3600 under a proper cooler. 3600 @ <4.2Ghz 498 FPS, 9600K @ 4.3Ghz 423 FPS that's a difference of 18% to the 3600, side by side video runs don't lie like slides so easily can.

5% or so might not sound like a lot but where they are this close it maters. https://www.techspot.com/review/1877-core-i9-9900k-vs-ryzen-9-3900x/

Because its a margin of error difference - an AIO water cooler is £40 to £60. What is the point when that adds,25% to 30% to the cost of a Ryzen 5 3600,and makes the difference between the Core i5 9600K(which can overclock more) less than £40?

This is what you are not getting,to get that Core i5 9600K to 5GHZ,it will be coming close to £270 to £290 including the cooling. A Ryzen 5 3600 is £190 with its stock cooling and HUB showed a Wraith Spire is good enough as an upgrade and can be bought for £5 if you want to get a minor increase and reduced temperatures.

I am running a Ryzen 5 2600 with the Wraith Spire cooler in a mini-ITX system. That cooler cost me £5 extra.

Also guess,what it made hardly any difference in actual boost frequencies using the crapper Wraith Stealth,it only ran hotter.

"Its not performing as well as it could with a proper cooler, but the point we want to make in this CPU performance review is its great value, AMD again with the lack of performance but hey ho at least they are cheap"

No, i'm sure AMD are sick of being seem as the "budget option" FFS let it stretch it's legs and put a proper cooler on it instead of strangling it and perpetuating the "budget plebeian option" that has plagued AMD for a decade.

No because in the end your view that AMD needs a £40 to £60 option favours Intel more.

You are literally making an excuse to favour Intel. If a AMD Ryzen 5 3600 can get 95% of its performance on basic cooling that is excellent,as it literally makes the Core i5 9600K look £80 to £100 more expensive for its 10% or however much its faster.

Once you ignore the stock cooling it drops the difference down much more to like under £40.

I am running a Wraith Spire on my own Ryzen 5 2600 in a mini-ITX system.

It works fine,and I don't give a damn if a £50 water cooler gives me another 100MHZ boost.

In fact its an advantage to me,to be able to do this since water coolers are bulky and I got fed up of having to use one on my IB Core i7.

DF are entirely correct to emphasis the extra cost of the cooling required for Intel CPUs.

Moreover,if there is a critcism,it is that I like to see Intel CPUs additionally tested on cheap cooler too,ie,a £20 cooler to see how they perform.

Equating cooling might add a bit more performance if you just want to compare CPUs,but trying to ignore it is not helping AMD at all.

For example a Ryzen 7 3700X is £320 including the boxed cooler. The cheapest Core i7 9700K is £369 with no cooler. If you add a £60 cooler to the Core i7 9700K,it comse to £429 which makes the difference £109. OTH,if you push to have AMD have the same cooler to gain 5% or less extra performance,the difference is under £50. Intel will still eek out a victory in those lightly threaded games like ARMA III and so on.

 

[humbug]

CAT my board doesn't have PBO, it runs at <4.2Ghz without it under a 4 year old KRAKEN X31 at <65c. using PBO in Ryzen Master makes 0 difference.

I don't care about it being the value option, it's just plain a fast CPU, don't clip its wings, let it fly.