• 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.

OcUK Ryzen 3000/Zen 2 review thread

MartinPrince said:
Cheers Ctf, my 3900X is in the post so I'll be able to see exactly how fast it is for my exact workflow. ;) Though these results are both for mass exports of multiple photos at the same time which will generally favour multi core CPU's. I rarely if ever do anything like that so I can not extrapolate those benchmarks to my usage.
Click to expand...

But the previous results are not a fluke apparently,and AMD is significantly ahead core for core. The 8C/16T Ryzen 7 3700X is equal to the 10C and 12C Intel Skylake X CPUs in the benchmarks,and higher compared to a higher clockspeed Core i9 9900K. It might be the L3 cache at work IMHO.

Also,Pugetsystems ran their Photoshop benchmark on the Ryzen 5 3600:
https://www.pugetsystems.com/pic_disp.php?id=55961&width=800

So in-between the Core i5 9600K and Core i7 9700K.
 
easyrider said:
Yes
Click to expand...

I didn't remember as much drama about that and AMD even will provide a boot kit.

Journey said:
Nah, it was simpler than that, they just bought a Z390 board instead of re-soldering a new VRM/power delivery layout on to the boards :p
Click to expand...

Z390 is worth it even if it cost more than the Z370 and barely added any more features. X570 adds PCI-E 4.0,and now its end of the world and none of the 300 or 400 series AMD motherboards exist.

If Intel allowed the Z170 and Z270 to run 6C and 8C CFL CPUs,it would be like the second coming!
 
@MartinPrince

Puget Systems have published their Photoshop benchmarks:

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/a...adripper-2-Intel-9th-Gen-Intel-X-series-1529/

pic_disp.php
 
Last edited:
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.
 
humbug said:
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.


Click to expand...

DF said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
humbug said:
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/

kNr8GhK.png
Click to expand...

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.

2019-07-21-image.png


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.

humbug said:
"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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
humbug said:
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, let it fly.
Click to expand...

I look at performance per £.

Most of my mates will quite happily take 90% of the gaming performance of a Ryzen CPU using its included cooler when compared to more expensive Intel plus its additonal cooling. In the end it means the builds can be more balanced,ie,spend more on the graphics card or something else for example. Also the fact is if you want to upgrade the cooling on a Ryzen 5 3600,places like OcUK sell the Spire and Prism for £5 and £20 respectively.

I was actually looking at the Core i7 8700 non-K and Core i7 8700K when I had to upgrade my old IB Xeon E3 system,but when my Ryzen 5 2600 cost me £137,and £5 for a Wraith Stealth,which was a cheap lowish profile cooler. This is compared to £300 at least during that time for the Core i7 8700 non-K which has a crap Intel stock cooler,meaning in a mini-ITX system I probably would have to get a much more expensive cooler,I was not going to spend over double to get 10% extra peformance(or less) in non-gaming stuff,or 15% extra in games.

Sure,if its just a CPU comparison I can understand the logic of equating cooling but again I also disagree entirely stock cooling should be ignored,and I would like an additional test of the Intel CPUs with a Hyper 212 or TX3 for example.

In the end pushing for equated cooling only makes AMD look much less value if you ignore the stock cooling,and the cost of the extra cooling for Intel was equated into many builds I knew people do.

Also I see no point of spending £50 on an AIO water cooler for a £190 Ryzen 5 3600 just to gain 100MHZ over buying a £5 Wraith Spire.

Edit!!

The same goes with all those people spending £100 more on very fast RAM to get 5% extra game performance on a £200 CPU. Meh.
 
Last edited:
nomadd said:
When you can pick up PC3200 ram so cheap, I doubt the expensive ram would even show a 5% increase across a broad range of games. Probably more like 1-2% max. So yeah, pointless spend.
Click to expand...

Ryzen 3000 also appears to not only have better compatibility with DDR4,but also seems to be less dependent on faster RAM than Ryzen 1000 and 2000 according to the testing DF did too!! Also,Micron E-die 3200MHZ DIMMs,can apparently overclock reasonably well,so if you have enough airflow,it should do the trick.
 
The MSI B450 Tomahawk has problems:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MSI_Gaming/comments/ch9qud/msi_livestream_conclusion/

MSI LiveStream Conclusion
renderTimingPixel.png

  • B450 Tomahawk will stay on GSI Lite and will not recieve the Click Bios 5 again, at least for Ryzen 3000 Series and upcoming. Users of 1000/2000 Series should stay on their BIOS.

  • GSI Lite BIOS will not going to have OC profiles again. Update: They are looking into it. No promise. Quote: " ***MSI Gaming:*** just checking some bios release note, OC Profiles might be back in future GSE-Lite bioses "

  • MSI is *now* aware of the problems regarding the Tomahawk and CPU Debug light issues and will investigate that problem. They hopefully have some new Infos next week, but no promise.

  • "Old" B450 MB (including Tomahawk) will have Ryzen support until 2020 (?)

  • If you just bought any B450 Board, you should return it and buy a MAX board instead. Its more "futureproof" for upcoming BIOS updates and its no hassle with Ryzen 3000 Series. (Official statement on livestream from MSI, wow.) Timestamp on stream: 1:40:29, you can watch it here -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_elcRHeVjI

  • After i asked this question: "Will there be an option to RMA an not working B450 Tomahawk and recieve an B450 Tomahawk MAX (maybe with additional charge) ?" They closed the stream. Quote: " ***MSI Gaming:*** Sorry it seems the stream dropped, anyway we are out fixing your Tomahawk issues. thanks for joining this was the last topic anyway. Thanks for joining and see you next week, hope to have an update on Tomahawk... no promise."
Click to expand...
 
chrcoluk said:
The problem is they dont test everything and when they do its often flawed methodology, after getting some results back from a friend I can tell you intel outperforms in a few games we tested that are not twitch shooters. Now is the performance huge or at least big enough to be an issue, thats not necessarily the case, but reviewers games testing is extremely narrow, and they also tend to do only minimal testing on stuff that isnt content creation or gaming.

Of course what is significant and not significant is also a matter of opinion, the reviewers only state an opinion in that regard. Some people will spend insane money to gain a few %.
Click to expand...

There are reviews with overclocked Intel CPUs - its the whole point of me going to the effort of putting every review I can find and every issue I can find into this thread.

Also, almost all the people I know who got K series CPUs never bothered overclocking them,and just got them for the higher default clockspeeds. The Intel 65W non-K parts tend to boost somewhat worse overall. Plus its quite clear by now even overclocking the AMD parts means nothing, when the lower parts are within a margin of error compared to the higher parts in terms of actual clockspeeds,unless 100MHZ actually means anything.

Edit!!

Also the maximum overclocks argument has never played well with me,as people never compare "safe" kinds of overclocks in forums,but everything at best possible case suicide voltage level. I have known people read into these claims on forums,and ended up with lemon CPUs.

I remember back in the day getting a Q6600 which had high VID,and it didn't overclock as well as what people were getting on forums,because people with the poor overclocking CPUs won't be generally boasting about them anyway.

:p

Second Edit!!

An example:
https://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i5_8600k/
https://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i5_9600k/

Based on 11000 entries,the average overclock of a Core i5 8600K/9600K is around 4.6GHZ~4.7GHZ which is much lower than what you see on forums.

Gamersnexus had their own Core i5 9600K at 5.2GHZ against a stock and "overclocked" Ryzen 5 3600.

Their Core i7 9700K was at 5.1GHZ in their Ryzen 7 3700X review.

Nearly 8000 entries,has the average at 4.95GHZ:
https://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i7_9700k/

That is normal people using a range of motherboards and different cooling solutions,so is as close to what an average enthusiast is getting from these CPUs over their lifespans.

If you look at the Ryzen 3000 CPUs,they are all at 4.2GHZ~4.3GHZ on average.
 
Last edited:
Zeed said:
And thats why Intel is doing this 9900ks. Its more like 3000series in a way aka runs at MAX out of box.
Click to expand...

That does mean unless the Core i9 9900KS replaces the Core i9 9900K,it might mean the latter overclocks worse.

chrcoluk said:
cat the fifth just noticed your reply.

I am surprised you know many people with K chips that run at stock speeds, as whilst thats a valid way to run them, its a poor value for money deal as there is a premium on those chips price wise.
In terms of "safe" overclocks I think your point is fair, I know first hand there is silicon lottery losers, and with reviewers seemingly getting a decent chance of a golden sample, that sways things even further so e.g. there is people claiming every coffee lake can hit 5ghz, and if someone posts they only get say 4.8ghz using 1.35vcore then the end user must be doing something wrong it cannot be simply that they got a silicon loser. So for this reason I think using a 8600k or 8700k at 5ghz as a comparison isnt quite right either, its definitely vague, a safe overclock is probably what MCE configures so probably 4.7 for an 8700k and 4.3 for an 8600k. I have never heard of an 8600k not able to reach 4.7 but there is some pretty nasty 8600k's out there, one guy needed 1.38v to hit 4.7. I also suspect a fair few of these claimed stable 5ghz chips are not proper stable. My own 8600k will boot into windows at 5ghz, I can run aida bench, cinebench bench, play games. Browse the net etc. For a few hours. It probably would crash doing these activities eventually but I suspect some people will tolerate it providing its not too frequent. It of course crashed on stress testing.

If I was reviewing these parts I would likely test all 3 scenarios, shipping clocks, MCE clocks and "aggressive" clocks. 5ghz is aggressive on intel, even if you can get it stable they need very good cooling at those speeds. I would add a note MCE is whats realistically achievable, anything on top of that a bonus.

AMD has the advantage they are consistent, which I like, I like it a "LOT" I hate silicon lotteries (I lose them a lot which doesnt help), and especially when they have such a high variance. Having one chip need 1.38 to do 4.7 and another 1.25 to do 5ghz is too much variance in my opinion. A future I would like is akin to XFR, maybe PBO and all manual o/c outside of that disabled. To remove that variance, that lottery, you know what you getting for your money. Things like p-state tuning no problem, just disable the extra clocks.
Click to expand...

The problem is the non-K bins are 65W TDP CPUs,so out of the box they do tend not to hold as high clockspeeds,so I think that is why I have seen people buy them,and also "I can overclock it at a later date if needed",but then they don't bother! :p

Regarding overclocking it makes sense to have a range of overclocks as you mention,as it gives a closer to realworld approximition,of what level of performance you will get.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom